This is the letter I received from my Labour MP.
"Yesterday's Commons debate on the National Air Traffic Service - which I listened to in the Chamber - generated more heat than light and a smaller rebellion than last time.
What it was about was this: everyone accepts that NATS is suffering from acute under-investment, low morale and an increasing workload. With a new European 'open skies' policy on the horizon, the number of major Air Traffic Control centres in Europe is likely to fall by half, to 6 or 7, in the next 10 years. NATS cannot survive as it is now.
The question is not 'does it need
investment?' But 'where will that
investment come from?'
Only a few airports actually use NATS, including the major ones and
therefore most civil air traffic movement. Outside "the big 3" airports, NATS already provides air traffic services on commercial contracts as though it was a private company. Others provide their own, private, air traffic control - like East Midlands. There is absolutely no suggestion that these
are any less safe than NATS ATC services. Are state owned aircraft saferthan private ones?
It is in no one's interests to allow safety standards to slip and the legislation guarantees that they will not. In response to the safety lobby, new NATS will not set, monitor or enforce safety standards - that will be done by a tougher CAA in future.
In schools, hospitals and elsewhere we are harnessing a wealth of private capital and putting it to good work in enhancing public services. Our public/private partnerships (PPP) are more just, more accountable and better managed than Tory privatisation route. In the new NATS, the government will
own 46% including a 'golden share' and the workforce will own 5%.
The new law will technically allow the private share to rise to 75% - because European law insists on this flexibility. We have no intention of implementing this. Defence and security issues are not relevant to this debate, as the military have their own ATC service. The future is bright for NATS. Without this investment, faster, bigger and more sustained than the public sector alone could afford, we could lose NATS
completely to foreign competition in the next few years. This way, we have cash available for capital investment whilst releasing even more cash for our priority revenue spending areas such as health and education.
You asked:
Has the privatisation of British Rail and the formation of Railtrack been a success?
> We have of course learned the lessons of Railtrack which is why we are NOT proposing 100% sell-off and NOT proposing that the new NATS has sole responsibility for safety.
Have the number of safety related incidents since rail privatisation increased or decreased?
> I don't know. Investment under the public authority was clearly inadequate
and the quality of management there is arguably no worse now than it was then. Fatal incidents regrettably are at a similar level as before. Numbers of passengers are up by 20% and number of services by over 1300.
Did your party support rail privatisation when in opposition?
> No, but we can't pretend it did not happen and we can't turn the clock back.
Didn't your party say whilst in opposition that "our air is not for sale"?
> Yes, which is why this will be a partnership enlisting private capital for the public good, and why the private interest will not control the safety standards."
This was my reply to which I have not yet received a response:
"You have answered some of my questions in a way that leaves me in no doubt that you support the government in its endeavours.
You have, however, either ignored or chosen not to answer some of my other questions. I shall restate them and would be grateful if you could furnish me with answers.
Will the private partner be paying dividends to shareholders from the profits made by NATS?
Why is the trust model proposed by IPMS and others regarded as unsuitable for NATS when it is used successfully elsewhere?
What about the suitability of the bidders I raised in my previous email?
By selling off part of NATS you will raise perhaps £500m. How far will this go in relation to health and education?
You state that NATS is suffering from acute under-investment, low morale and an increasing workload. This is true. The under-investment is government controlled. The low morale is caused by uncertainty brought about by your PPP proposals. Increasing workload is a fact of modern life.
We need investment and stability. Investment would be forthcoming from the trust models we have proposed. Stability, we feel, will not be forthcoming by selling off a chunk of NATS to raise some cash for a hospital or a school. If you do succeed in your aims and PPP goes ahead, the money raised should be spent on aviation and not siphoned off for other projects that should be paid for from taxation.
I do not disagree with your statement that we already operate as a commercial company tendering for airport contracts. We have gone through a streamlining in the last 10 years that makes us much more efficient. I feel that by having a private company running NATS these efficiencies will be taken too far and the service will suffer.
Your argument for safety is based on the premise that I believe that the only safe ATC service is a publicly owned ATC service. This is not so. I agree that East Midlands or Newcastle are just as safe as NATS. These services are not run for profit. They are run by the airport operator to facilitate the operation at their airports. Their profits are made from the airlines paying landing fees and passengers shopping. Shopping is how BAA makes the majority of its money, hence its desire to build another terminal at Heathrow. Yes it will attract more passengers but it will be full of shops also.
Even though the rebellion was less than last time there are still a lot of people who believe this is not the right way to go. Our efforts to oppose PPP will continue."
We've still got a big fight on our hands but if we keep fighting its a fight we can win.
Get writing to your MPs and get everyone you know to do the same. It may not make the difference but if it does go wrong we can say "we told you!"