Department of Transport

HC Deb 10 July 1989 vol 156 cc739-75

[Relevant document: First Report from the Transport Committee of Session 1988–89 on Air Traffic Control Safety (House of Commons Paper No. 198) and the Third Special Report: Government Observations on the First Report (House of Commons Paper No. 407)]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a further sum, not exceeding £156,213,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990 for expenditure by the Department of Transport on assistance to shipping; civil aviation; central administration; certain licensing and testing schemes; research and development; road safety and certain other transport services; including civil defence, grants in aid, international subscriptions, and residual expenses associated with the privatisation of transport industries.—[Mr. Peter Bottomley]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

I remind the House that under the resolution of the House on 27 June this estimate is to be considered so far as it relates to civil aviation services.

7.26 pm

Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston)

Select Committee inquiries are often topical at the time when the Committee agrees to carry out an inquiry. However, when the final report is presented to the House the passage of events and of time have usually made the report of little public interest. That is not the case in relation to the report of the Transport Select Committee on air traffic control safety and runway capacity and the Government's response to it.

Our report is even more topical and of greater public interest now than the subject was some 17 months ago in February 1988 when we agreed to conduct our inquiry. We began our inquiry at a time of increasing public concern about the safety of the skies over the United Kingdom following a number of air misses. It quickly became a time of increasing public annoyance at airport congestion, delays to summer holidays and so on.

Now the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that almost all air travellers experience delays at some time, regardless of the month in which they travel. Those of us who travel weekly, and often wearily, are too well aware of the situation which, sadly, I fear will only get worse in the next five years before it starts to get better, if it ever does. I wrote most of my remarks for tonight's debate to pass my time during an air traffic control delay between Glasgow and London today.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that Edinburgh was also affected by similar delays. The 12.40 British Midland flight finally took off at 3.40, three hours late.

Mr. Marshall

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made it in time to participate in this debate.

I have already referred to air misses or near misses. Perhaps "air hits" or "near hits" would be more appropriate descriptions. I must stress, however, that Britain has an excellent record of air traffic control safety and that reflects great credit on everyone concerned. I also stress that our inquiry revealed no concrete evidence to suggest that safety was definitely at risk. However, no one can guarantee 100 per cent. safety, 100 per cent. of the time. With ever-increasing demand, pressures on staff, shortages and general all-round pressures, there is always the possibility of an accident occurring. I certainly hope that one does not happen and, if our report goes some way towards preventing any such accident, it will have been well worth while.

This was the Committee's major inquiry during 1988. I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for recommending this estimate for debate today. I am also extremely grateful to the other 10 members, of all parties, of the Select Committee on Transport for the hard work which they put into the compilation of the report and also to the Committee staff for their efforts on our behalf. I should also like to thank our two specialist advisers, Mr. Bill Woodruff, the former group director and controller of National Air Traffic Services, and Mr. David Learmount, the transport editor of Flight International. Thanks are also due to the 11 groups of witnesses who gave oral evidence to the Committee and the 72 individuals and organisations who submitted written memoranda on the subject to the Committee. Those included my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Our report is published in three volumes and contains 283 pages of evidence, 105 pages of appendices and 47 recommendations from the Committee which were agreed to by all parties represented on the Committee.

No one disputes that transport in Britain is in a mess. Congested airports, overcrowded trains and tubes, motorway tailbacks for miles and traffic jams on all main roads are commonplace. That is hardly surprising in view of almost 10 years of Government neglect in failing to provide adequate infrastructure or to take proper cognisance of the fact that transport policy involves public safety, along with a prolonged ability by almost everyone involved to underestimate the demand for all modes of travel. The present Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), inherited this bed of nails.

I have the highest regard for the right hon. Gentleman who is the first Secretary of State for Transport in my 10 years in the House to take a genuine interest in transport. Perhaps these kind words will be the kiss of death for him, but I sincerely hope not. However, although he may care deeply about transport and has developed a good working relationship with the Select Committee, which its members appreciate, I cannot agree with or understand many of his decisions, or non-decisions, on transport policies.

The Secretary of State is still not making the right decisions about the nation's transportation needs, or making them fast enough, as our report will show. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would be present to participate in this debate. Unfortunately, he is not here. I understand that the Minister for Roads and Traffic will participate. However, while he will do his best, it will still be only second best, which is typical of the Government's attitude to transport.

Unfortunately, this debate is not about all aspects of transport, but only about the narrow although vital matter of air traffic control safety. However, there is enough evidence in the report to bear out what I have said. No doubt many hon. Members from both sides of the House will pick up many points from the report, as well as making specific remarks about their own localities. I shall concentrate on a few main general points of interest as well as those of interest in Scotland.

In his press release of 15 June, announcing the Government's response to the report, the Secretary of State said that several of the Committee's recommendations corresponded to measures that had already been implemented during the past year. I should like to think that the Committee's deliberations had provided a useful forum for discussion of the issues and been of some use in guiding the Department and the Civil Aviation Authority in their response to the problems of air traffic control as they developed. That is perhaps one of the best and most important roles performed by Select Committees.

The Secretary of State went on to say that he and the Civil Aviation Authority broadly accepted the analysis and agreed with the majority of the Committee's recommendations. I welcome that statement and compliment the Secretary of State on his actions. However, the recommendations not accepted, or continued for further consideration, are those which, perhaps, give greatest cause for concern.

In some of his responses, the Secretary of State appears to accept the 1985 White Paper on airports policy as the be-all and end-all of aviation policy. But it is now four years or more out of date. Since then, the aviation world has moved ahead at a rate that no one forecast or anticipated. The right hon. Gentleman should immediately commission a review and an update of the 1985 White Paper. A 1990 White Paper would come to different conclusions.

Our report contains bad news and good news. The bad news relates to the history of air traffic control since 1975. The good news involves what is being done, and will be done, to deal with the issue, even if those actions are being taken five years or more too late. Sadly, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which produced a report on national air traffic services in 1983, noted that the CAA had sought a 15 per cent. cut in manpower between the years 1975 and 1977, and that this had been achieved, although over a longer period. After 1982, there was increased pressure from the Department and the CAA to find further ways of saving manpower and the then five-year corporate plan contained a target reduction in staff of 7.4 per cent.

It seemed to us that little or no account was taken over the years of the possible need for additional and increasing commitments or of the certainty of increasing traffic. In addition, account was not taken of the need for more air traffic control staff to deal with the planning of new systems and developments or of the need to allow for the considerable time that elapses between recruitment and the operational availability of air traffic controllers. The Civil Aviation Authority, under pressure from the Department, continued to seek ways of cutting staff levels and, it appeared to us, adopted recruiting targets on the basis of over-optimistic assumptions about what was practical.

The chairman of the CAA admitted that, with the benefit of hindsight, reductions were carried too far and that the whole thrust of the MMC investigation as late as 1983 was down that road. The Institution of Professional Civil Servants noted that only three years ago, in 1986, the Civil Aviation Authority stated that it had a surplus of at least 135 air traffic controllers and that early retirement had been proposed to reduce the surplus. Not surprisingly, that led the IPCS to express a lack of confidence in the CAA and its forecasting abilities. With such a history of lack of foresight and undue pressure for reductions in staff levels, it is hardly surprising that there is now a serious shortage of air traffic controllers in this country.

Happily, the Civil Aviation Authority has begun to put its house in order. I believe that the chairman of the CAA, Christopher Tugendhat, is determined to make great improvements. However, that will take time and it will be at least five or six years before everything is completed. I am grateful to him for sending me a copy of his news release of 5 July, detailing 24 points regarding his £600 million investment programme for the next 10 years.

Recommendations 10 and 26 in our report refer to the need for crucial decisions to be made about future runway capacity, especially in the south-east, and add that, despite everything, a second runway should be provided at Gatwick. I accept that there is unlikely to be a second runway at Gatwick, but there should be. The world's airlines estimate that demand for air travel will grow two and a half times between 1989 and 2005. It does not take a genius to realise that more than a fair share of that increase will take place in the south-east of England or to forecast that Heathrow, Gatwick, and even Stansted, will have reached saturation long before the year 2000.

If there is to be no second runway at Gatwick—and it is almost 1990—and as it takes, on average, 12 years from the date of decision to complete a new runway, there will be no new runway in the south-east of England to meet the demand by the year 2000 unless someone somewhere gets his finger out now. I have been told that the cost to airlines of a one-minute delay for a 757 aircraft is £150 and for a 747 aircraft it is £900. If those figures are correct, they are staggering and who knows what the annual cost could be, based on the delays that occur?

We are only too well aware of the problems of congestion and of the massive additional costs that it imposes on airlines, business and industry. It causes extreme annoyance, upset and even heartbreak to passengers. We really need national, European and international aviation policies that will meet the needs of passengers and of safety, not those of vested interests. Speaking of vested interests, the British Airports Authority has been criticised by some Conservative Members on the Committee for acting as a private monopoly and for being more concerned with selling franchises in airports and with increasing profits at the expense of airport users than with furthering the wider interests of British aviation. Perhaps a return to the public sector or the breaking up of its monopoly might find all-party agreement.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)

Surely one of the reasons why the British Airports Authority has successfully branched out into spheres of activity other than providing services for air travellers is that it operates on a price control of RPI minus 1 per cent. Perhaps we should re-examine that formula; if we give the authority more scope for making more money out of providing the services that it should provide, on which it lost £15 million last year, while making a total profit of £198 million overall it might switch its attention to providing the sort of services that we want it to provide.

Mr. Marshall

The profits just announced by the BAA seem to show general agreement with the points I have made about it. It certainly operates different charging policies at different airports. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to say something in support of the BAA later on.

An example of BAA's possible inadequacy relates to new runways and traffic forecasts. Its forecast for growth in traffic is based on an annual average growth rate of 4.5 per cent. for passengers and 2 per cent. for air transport movements. The figures are necessarily speculative, but the Civil Aviation Authority puts the annual growth rate for air transport movements at 2.5 per cent. Although there would appear to be little difference between the two bodies' estimates, the CAA figures clearly show the need for a new runway at the turn of the century. The BAA places undue reliance on the expectation that passengers will travel on larger aircraft. That is the point that it put to us, but the figures do not bear it out.

Over the past 10 years the average number of passengers per aircraft at Heathrow has increased by only 11 per cent., whereas passenger growth in the same period has been 34 per cent. The BAA appears to think that London's existing airports will be able to cope until after the turn of the century, but it is alone in that view, and alone in assuming that a new runway can be conceived, planned and built in less than 10 years.

We heard none of the necessary urgency from Sir Norman Payne or his officials when they appeared before us. I find it hard to understand their attitude unless it is entirely influenced by their desire to develop Stansted more quickly than originally envisaged.

The Secretary of State should go all out to encourage much greater use of regional airports such as Birmingham and Glasgow for international and intercontinental flights. That would help to reduce some of the pressure on the south-east, as recommendation 23 of the report suggests——

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marshall

I shall give way in a moment; I think that my hon. Friend is prejudging what I am about to say.

The decision not to grant gateway status to Glasgow airport and allow transatlantic and intercontinental flights from Abbotsinch is disgraceful. Almost everyone in Scotland wants gateway status for Glasgow and even, perhaps, for Edinburgh. I shall mention only the CBI, the Glasgow chamber of commerce, Glasgow district council——

Mr. Foulkes

rose——

Mr. Marshall

I shall give way in a minute. Many more jobs could be created if Glasgow were given gateway status. A number of British, European and American airlines would operate new services and Glasgow would become a minihub providing better services to more destinations for the people of Scotland. I hope that that would also end the scandalous surcharges that holiday companies extort from tourists who have to travel to the south and go on holiday.

Mr. Foulkes

My hon. Friend is talking a load of rubbish. First, he mixed up transatlantic flights and European holiday flights. No one denies that Glasgow airport should have more direct flights to Europe and more European holiday flights, but it should not take away the transatlantic flights which sustain Prestwick airport. That would be the death knell of Prestwick, and Glasgow does not have the runway capacity or terminal and ground facilities to deal with such traffic.

My hon. Friend is wrong to say that opinion in Scotland supports Glasgow airport's bid for transatlantic status. The Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish council of the Labour party, with which my hon. Friend is not unconnected, have made it clear, as have many other bodies, including district councils, Strathclyde regional council and others, that they want Prestwick to remain as Scotland's transatlantic gateway, prospering in association with Glasgow airport in a joint role. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that and will think again.

Mr. Marshall

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's speech, but he has not got it right. He has allowed his blinkers to conceal the right path from him. Apart from Ayrshire Members of all parties and the Secretary of State for Scotland, very few people in Scotland believe that Glasgow, and perhaps even Edinburgh, should not have gateway status.

Mr. Foulkes

I do not know whether my hon. Friend realises that Sir Norman Payne convened a meeting which 25 Scottish Members of all four parties representing Scotland attended. No one spoke against Prestwick having sole transatlantic status; all speeches were in favour. That proves my hon. Friend entirely wrong.

Mr. Marshall: I, in turn, draw my hon. Friend's attention to the poll of all 72 Scottish Members carried out recently by the Daily Record. It gave the opposite point of view, and it was the first time Members had been asked to state whether they were in favour of gateway status for Glasgow airport. Our hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) attended the meeting with the BAA a fortnight ago, when we were told that the new generation of aircraft would have no difficulty flying from Glasgow to the west coast of the United States. It is not true that Glasgow is unsuitable for transatlantic flights: it is perfectly suitable.

Glasgow will never be a hub to rival Heathrow, Gatwick or even Manchester, but if it does not get gateway status Manchester will become Scotland's gateway airport. All the additional expense of the road and rail links mooted for Prestwick, which are admirable for the infrastructure for the west of Scotland, will not generate enough additional passengers ever to make Prestwick a hub. To give Glasgow gateway status would not mean the death of Prestwick, as my hon. Friend suggests. Prestwick is an excellent airport with excellent facilities and staff and it will always have a future. About 4,500 jobs are located there—with British Aerospace, the Ministry of Defence and Caledonian Air Motive, and new developments are announced every week. About 250 people are employed—

Mr. Foulkes

Is my hon. Friend not aware that four major announcements have been made—one by the CAA, one by British Aerospace, a third by Caledonian Air Motive and the last by TNT (UK) Ltd? All four decisions follow the wise decision by the Secretary of State for Transport—I never thought I would say that—to maintain Prestwick's sole transatlantic status. The decisions follow that decision and depend on it to a large extent. If the Secretary of State had taken my hon. Friend's advice, these welcome decisions might not have been taken.

Mr. Marshall

I am touched by the unholy alliance between my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Transport. We are considering what is in the best interests of Scotland's aviation future, and that has to be gateway status for Glasgow. I hope that the Secretary of State for Transport will reconsider his decision and in the fullness of time will change his mind. At the end of the day it is Glasgow's future that matters and the decision is a bad one for Scotland's future in transport.

On another Scottish issue, the Civil Aviation Authority has an initiative to pinpoint flight delays and airline punctuality at selected British airports and publish the figures monthly. Six airports—Birmingham, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, Manchester and Stansted—have been chosen, but not a single Scottish airport is on the list. Why is that, bearing in mind that Anglo-Scottish shuttle flights are arguably the busiest domestic services in the United Kingdom? It is still not too late to include Scotland in this initiative and the Secretary of State or the chairman of the CAA should do so as soon as possible.

I am pleased to see that in the response to recommendation (xxxii) National Air Traffic Services is studying the feasibility of a new east coast airway between Newcastle and Clacton. That is urgently needed to relieve some of the pressure on the overcrowded Daventry airway. I should like to see a decrease in the amount of air space reserved exclusively for military use. I would welcome an early announcement on recommendation (xxxviii). That recommendation states that a location for the new London air traffic control centre should be decided upon "without further delay" if it is to be operational by 1996. That is crucial to the whole strategy for the future. When and where is it to be built? Perhaps the Minister will give us some information about that.

I shall now turn to a major recommendation, at least in the areas of organisation and administration. It is the recommendation that the Government examine the possibility of splitting the CAA into two separate self-standing organisations. The CAA would retain all its regulatory functions while NATS would be established as a separate public sector body. I thought that the Department would reject that recommendation out of hand. The House can imagine my surprise at reading the Government's response which states: This is an important recommendation which requires thorough consideration. The Government will respond in due course. Unfortunately, I do not think that that shows a willingness to accept our recommendation. I suspect that it is a hint that the Government have the CAA on their list of targets for privatisation. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the matter.

On Eurocontrol the Government's response to recommendation (xxxi) is encouraging. I hope that they and the CAA will pursue the matter with the utmost vigour as they say they will. A large part of the problem is in Europe which is comparable in size and population with the United States of America where the Federal Aviation Authority standardises equipment and procedures for the whole of the United States. We need and must eventually achieve a similar set-up in Europe. We need a central European system of air traffic control covering all 22 European countries and not just the EC countries. Eurocontrol must become a reality whether one or two of our leaders like it or not.

If our Select Committee inquiry and report have gone even a little way towards making the skies above our country a bit safer, they will have been well worth while.

7.52 pm

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and his Committee on their most excellent first report on air traffic control safety. The Committee interviewed an impressive list of experts in the field and the numerous memoranda submitted to the Committee make interesting reading.

We address this subject at a time when a great deal is happening in air transport. We are seeing rapid technological and commercial change. The legal and institutional frameworks are being transformed and the European Community is in the process of getting a single European market in air transport as in other sectors. We have recently had the first measure of liberalisation in Europe which enables small aircraft to fly between regional airports. Another measure is due in 1990. If the internal market in air transport is to be achieved by the target date of 1 January 1993 there must be substantial advance in the next stage of liberalisation that we will see in June 1990. It is within the context of those changes that we are addressing the recommendations of the Committee.

I suggest that the measures that we want adopted in the next stage of liberalisation should include, first, the freedom for airlines to set their own fares, subject only to safeguards against anti-competitive practices. Secondly, we need the opening of all routes between member states and, thirdly, the removal of capacity constraints on services between member states. Fourthly, existing limits on multiple designation should be removed and, fifthly, we need further liberalisation of passenger services. Sixthly, we need the full liberalisation of all cargo services. Seventhly, we want to see endorsed the effectiveness of competition rules by a review of block exemption regulations. Lastly, we must have equality of opportunity between member states, and that must be safeguarded by uniform criteria throughout the Community for route licensing and effective control of state aid to airlines.

Within a liberalised Europe we must have a level playing field, and at the moment too many of our partners in Europe profess to think towards liberalisation while practising state control and assistance against countries such as the United Kingdom where domestic liberalisation has already occurred to a large extent and where the industry is based on free enterprise operating in a free market.

I should like to highlight some of the changes which are currently seen in civil aviation and which are important to bear in mind when considering these recommendations. First, there is strong pressure on airlines, and on those companies and organisations that provide services for airlines, to increase efficiency and to lower costs. We are beginning to see new route planning, operational methods and market domination through the hubs. We are also beginning to see the concentration of market power in the hands of a few very large carriers. That is happening in the United States of America where the six biggest carriers operate more than 50 per cent. of the services. That could happen in Europe through mergers and acquisitions, some of which cross frontiers. We have seen the recent British Airways arrangements with Sabena and perhaps the Select Committee on Transport would like to address that issue next.

We are beginning to see increasing control of feeder operations by the major carriers and increased air space and airport congestion and additional problems about the availability of slots at airports. The circumstances in which the Select Committee looks at those difficulties are trying and the problems are difficult to resolve.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

I am trying hard to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he agree that the matters that he has listed are the result of deregulation, especially in America? Is that not what capitalism is about? What does he object to if on the one hand he says he wants further liberalisation while on the other hand he says that if this happens the largest and strongest will take the best of the market? I am not quite clear about that.

Mr. Colvin

It is difficult to explain, but there is a fundamental difference between liberalisation and total deregulation. In the United States the industry was totally deregulated and that created a free-for-all. One of the experts on the subject is Mr. Michael Levine who is well known to those with an interest in civil aviation. He dreamed up the whole concept of deregulation in the United States and Mr. Alfred Kahn administered it on behalf of President Carter when he was elected. It has not worked out as anticipated by the gurus who dreamed it up. If we had asked them, way back, to use their crystal ball, they would never have envisaged that the industry in the United States would have its present structure.

We want to learn from the American mistakes. I do not believe that Europe should go for a total free-for-all. That is why I carefully used the word "liberalisation" rather than total deregulation. The United Kingdom is in a much stronger position, because of the strength of its domestic carriers, to capitalise on the liberalisation that we hope will take place in Europe. Plenty of our entrepreneurs are beginning to jump the hurdles that are likely to be placed in their way in Europe. Air Europe is a very good example. Majority shareholdings are being taken in companies that are being set up in member countries. The national frontiers that we hope will come down in 1992 are already being jumped by some airliners from a legal point of view. That is thoroughly healthy.

The other problem is the rapid expansion of the industry. The number of passengers using British airports by the year 2005, which is only 15 years away, is expected to double to 123 million. Most of those passengers will use airports in the south-east.

The Committee has carried out its inquiry at a time when there is growing anger over delays at airports and occasional anxiety over safety. However, I stress what the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Shettleston, has just said: travelling by air is still the safest way of travelling and that it is getting safer every year. I have just been told that delays at Heathrow are now up to two hours and that pilots and air traffic control officers are beginning to have rows. The relations between air traffic control officers and the pilots flying the aircraft are normally extremely good, but now the tension is mounting. That bodes ill for safety. When people become edgy and irritable, the safety factor has to be watched extremely carefully.

I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he thinks that the national air traffic control system is coping with the problem at Heathrow. Where is the leadership and the good line management that we need? What about the working practices of air traffic control officers? It is a man management problem at Heathrow as much as any other. I believe that it must be resolved.

Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre)

Does my hon. Friend agree that in many cases the delays are the result of the universal application of flow control, which has detracted from air safety, although the whole purpose of introducing flow control was to increase safety?

Mr. Colvin

I agree. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) will expand on that point later in the debate, if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am delighted that in its recommendations the Committee stressed the safety factor. I am also pleased that the Committee dealt first with people when addressing the problem of air traffic control. Air traffic control is an extremely difficult task. People of the highest calibre are required. Those of us who have seen air traffic controllers at work appreciate the stress under which they are put. They must be fully trained, rewarded properly for the task that they do and encouraged to do better. I am glad that the Civil Aviation Authority is to recruit an additional 140 officers to help to put right some of their past mistakes. Pay, promotion prospects and working conditions are all factors that are of the greatest importance if we are to encourage the right sort of people into air traffic control. I am very glad that retired air traffic controllers have been recruited to train the new ones. That is a move in the right direction.

Air traffic controllers have to shoulder terrific responsibilities. If we put in place the right pay structure, working structure and conditions of employment to attract the right people there ought then to be a no strike agreement. I know it will be pointed out that the only country that has a no strike agreement with air traffic controllers is Greece, yet that is the one country where the air traffic controllers are constantly on strike, so a no strike agreement is said to be no good. The fact is that they do not go on strike; they just report sick. The right people who will become responsible air traffic controllers have to be the sort of people who serve in the armed forces and the police. They do not expect to have to go on strike. That is why the pay and working conditions of air traffic controllers must be right.

I am very pleased that the Committee recommended that there should be a second runway at Gatwick. I point out, however, that a second runway at Gatwick already exists, although for most of the time it is used as a taxiway. It would be possible for the British Airports Authority to make a new taxiway at Gatwick. The authority already owns sufficient land to make room for it. The planning consent at Gatwick includes a section 52 agreement under which no second runway should be built for another 40 years or so. However, the runway is already there. All that is necessary is a lengthening of that runway. Then it could be used for one of the purposes for which it was originally intended. There would still be room elsewhere at the airport to taxi the aircraft. The two runways could be used together—one for take-offs and the other for landings without aircraft interfering with one another. It is high time that those hon. Members with constituencies around Gatwick became a little less Luddite in their attitude to a very important asset.

I am pleased about the Committee's recommendation concerning military airports. That recommendation is particularly important for business aviation. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is in the Chamber. One possibility is that business aviation that at present uses Heathrow should use Northolt. That could work quite well. The runway would need to be realigned, but I am told by executive and business travellers that it would be easy for Northolt passengers to interline with scheduled flights at Heathrow.

I am pleased about the recommendation concerning Bournemouth and Southampton airports, both of which are close to my constituency. A deal between the two airports—for Bournemouth to handle all charter traffic and for Southampton to handle all the scheduled traffic—would mean that those two regional airports could carve up the business between them instead of competing head on and doing each other commercial damage.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

As I am sure that there are no Luddites in the Bournemouth and Southampton areas, could the hon. Gentleman explain what he expects Luddites such as the Foreign Secretary to do in relation to Gatwick? This is a serious problem. What is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Members of Parliament should do in relation to Gatwick?

Mr. Colvin

Legislation would be needed for a second runway at Gatwick if a completely new runway had to he built. That is why I say that powerful forces within Government are working against that. I take the view that some of them ought to he a little more public spirited. That is what I mean by being Luddite.

As to the key to a better air traffic control system in Europe, I believe that the United Kingdom joined Eurocontrol in 1973. I remember being lobbied as far back as 1975 by air traffic control officers who wanted the United Kingdom to be a full member, not just an associate member, of Eurocontrol. At that time most of the lobby was concerned about pay and working conditions and had very little to do with air traffic control. Now the circumstances have completely changed and there is no doubt that all the people who clamour for a pan-European air traffic control system must have in mind Eurocontrol as the basis for that system.

In May 1988 the European Parliament Transport Committee passed a resolution that Eurocontrol be expanded. It recognised the need for an integrated system of air traffic control in western European air space. It felt that the European Parliament had taken the view that the responsibility for this should be conferred on an enlarged Eurocontrol as that would maximise air transport safety, achieve better utilisation of air space and result in speedier handling of traffic, the reduction of air fares, greater passenger convenience, fewer diversions, sounder coordination of military and civil air transport and a host of other things. A year ago, when the European Parliament debated this important issue, it reached precisely the same conclusions as the Select Committee.

I am glad that the Select Committee recommended that the LATCC II site should go ahead with all possible haste. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, I should like to know where the LATCC II site is. In their response to the Committee the Government said that the Department of Transport was working on an initial project investment appraisal, yet I do not believe that a planning application for any site has been submitted.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley)

I understand that a shortlist is being considered, and one site is expected to be selected shortly.

Mr. Colvin

That is the prepared answer, for what it is worth.

We have heard some mention of the £600 million that the Civil Aviation Authority has already committed to air traffic control. I am glad to hear that the chairman of the CAA, Christopher Tugendhat, is well on the way to spending that £600 million on his investment programme and other matters. Last year he spent £50 million on a new chain of advanced en route radars, and £10 million on re-equipment at Heathrow. That is all good stuff, but it is chicken feed compared with the £6 billion that the Government have committed to the road system, no doubt thanks to the machinations of the Minister for Roads and Traffic who will reply to the debate. Why can he not do as well for civil aviation? Perhaps the Prime Minister should make him aviation Minister and civil aviation would get more funding. At the moment civil aviation is treated as a poor relation in transport terms. The railways are getting almost as much money as the road system, yet civil aviation has to make do with a paltry £600 million.

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he really should not talk such nonsense. We keep repeating, in the hope that some Conservative Members will absorb it, that the capital investment in British Rail is self-generated. Essential and necessary services, some of which no doubt run through the hon. Gentleman's constituency, receive less than £500 million a year.

Mr. Colvin

We are digressing from air traffic control, but it is a fact that the Government are investing 10 times more in the road system than in air transport.

If a lot more has to be spent, where will the money come from? I have mentioned the taxpayer, via the Department of Transport. Surely if we accelerate the programme of investment and spend more money within Europe, Europe itself could be a source of funding. European money is available now for work on infrastructure. If this is not infrastructure, I do not know what is.

There is also the traveller. Ultimately, following liberalisation, fares within Europe should come down. If that happens, there should be some scope for including further costs on tickets to repay some of the investment in air traffic control. En route charges to airlines could go up to pay for some of the improvements. At present the BAA is tied to the RPI minus 1 per cent. formula. If that were re-examined, there might be some scope for encouraging the BAA to spend more on its investment on airline services including airport ATC rather than on other commercial activities.

The importance of good communications for people and goods was recognised by the Romans 2,000 years ago. They gave extremely high priority to their network of roads. Their roads ran straight and true, sometimes a lot straighter than European air routes today which, because of national airspace boundaries and zones closed for military use, often include zigzags instead of straight lines. Surely European Governments have a responsibility to straighten their routes and integrate their services. Only by burying national chauvinism and sharing our sovereignty will we be able to provide the air traffic control services that the travelling public needs and wants.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I remind the House that this is a short debate and many hon. Members wish to speak.

8.16 pm

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

The Romans had many useful forms of traffic planning. They had compulsory purchase which they enforced with the legions, they had centralised planning and they controlled the means by which it was applied, and they made absolutely sure that it fulfilled the purposes for which it was designed—to get their armies from one point of the empire to another as quickly as possible. That is the precise opposite of the Government's attitude to airport planning and air traffic safety.

The Transport Select Committee took a great deal of interesting and worrying evidence from many people who have to deal with the day-to-day chaos in air traffic control. The points they raised were echoed, in careful but clear terms, in the Select Committee report. The Select Committee asked for measures that are needed urgently to deal with a situation that is rapidly becoming intolerable.

Air traffic planning now needs radical and urgent responses. It cannot be dealt with by a minor touch on the tiller or an arrangement with one of the many split parts of Government planning that seem to be all we are being offered. It is important to remind the House of what the Select Committee report said about safety: We recommend that the Government provide, without delay, whatever support and financial assistance is needed. The crisis of airspace capacity is unlikely fully to be solved by the present patching-up process and we strongly recommend that, whatever short-term improvements may take place, the provision of LATCC II should proceed with all speed". The Select Committee then asked for extra money and made it clear that only the Government could take those important and clear decisions.

What was the Government's response? It was: Investment in air traffic control services is financed … by airspace users through the charging system without Government subsidy. This ensures that resources are deployed efficiently. The Government will authorise borrowing … to modernise and expand the facilities required to provide air traffic services, provided this investment shows the prospect of an adequate economic return. The Government are prepared to hand over responsibility for this vital form of transport to anyone who can justify the rate of return. It does not matter whether that calculation includes passengers or whether it shows the cost to British industry of constant delays. The Government believe that the only defining and deciding factor must be the market place, which has proved manifestly inept and incompetent. The Government are in the most unholy mess on traffic control. The decisions that must be taken tend to boil down—the industry loves using initials—to the three Ps, people, planes and planning, none of which the Department of Transport is providing.

The Select Committee was asked about leadership. There will continue to be insufficient male and female air traffic controllers if they are not provided with proper pay and support services. Time after time we were told that they were working under such stress that they were finding it increasingly difficult to maintain existing services. Any hon. Member who uses internal services or travels abroad from Britain knows that there are constant problems with slots and constant delays, and that the pressure being put on air traffic controllers is rapidly becoming intolerable for them and, ultimately, for the travelling public because of sheer stress.

The reality is that we are not coping with today's problems, but tomorrow they will be infinitely worse. The Government's planning of air traffic control seems to be the same as their planning of traffic on the Embankment. When it ceases to move altogether, they will begin to take a mild interest, but until that happens their sole solution will be to say, "We know that you cannot move on the motorways, so we shall simply make them wider", which will make it more difficult for people to get anywhere.

The problem is becoming increasingly worrying for people in the industry. We know that there is no overall airport planning. The Committee agreed that it is essential that another runway at Gatwick is built, yet the Government show no understanding of that and have not said how they will solve problems in the south-east. The Government appear to assume that runways cannot be built in the south-east, which is manifestly a policy of despair and abandon.

Some of the Government's responses to the Committee's recommendations, such as on Eurocontrol and flow control, were smug to the point of astonishment. Anyone who has watched the flow system in operation knows that at best it is simply a means of slowing down and managing existing slots. The system is not a solution to the problem; it simply seeks to manage an intolerable situation.

As the Committee noted, Eurocontrol has had a chequered history. In non-parliamentary language, that means that it is insufficiently controlled, that it does not have political decision-making powers behind it, that it does not have enough trained staff, that it does not have the right equipment and that it is not doing an efficient job. I am complaining not only about Maastricht but also about the many other elements that make up Eurocontrol.

Mr. Mans

Will the hon. Lady explain what she thinks Eurocontrol should do? Why does she think that its equipment is inadequate? It is much better than the equipment available at LATCC.

Mrs. Dunwoody

Eurocontrol has never pretended that it is capable of handling all the traffic that will be controlled by the Eurocontrol unit. It is capable of doing a small job in conjunction with existing air traffic controllers, which it has always done in a slightly uneven fashion. The Government say that they will put much pressure on the unit to ensure that it works better in the future. Is there any reason why the Government have not pressed for Eurocontrol to be built in Britain, given the amount of money that will be needed to construct a new air traffic control centre here? I cannot understand why it should be built anywhere else, but we have not been given a response about the inadequacy of Eurocontrol to deal with the current problem.

When the Department of Transport was asked about the difficulty of dividing traffic in the south-east and sorting out the problems of domestic flights compared with international flights and charter traffic, it said that it was awaiting the CAA's advice on the distribution of air traffic between the London area airports and that it noted the Committee's view. That is not an acceptable answer. There is not time to wait for a response that says, "If we are lucky, by the time the system has ceased to operate we should have staggered as far as 2005. By then we might need a new runway in the London area, so it might be a good idea to consider the CAA's formal advice before reaching decisions." Those decisions should have been taken a long time ago, but they were not and now the Government are paying for the pressure that they put on air traffic controllers, for the fact that they were not prepared radically to change their terms and conditions and, above all, for the fact that they were not prepared to find some form of retraining. We must have more air traffic controllers, and their equipment must be much more modern. It is no good saying that in 10 years' time we should have a system up and running. The planes stacking up in our airways today, tomorrow and next week will still be there in 10 years' time, but there will be many more of them.

We should like better use to be made of regional airports, but no one pretends for a moment that they will deal with the increasing problems of an air traffic control system that has little room to expand. Closer co-operation between the RAF and civilian controllers might give a little flexibility to the system.

The Government have created a monster, but they do not know what to do with it. Indeed, they are fleeing about two or three years behind the monster, which is galloping into the distance. Soon passengers will at least begin to sense that there is a safety problem. They will not sense it when they are sitting in planes and becoming more and more irritated by the time that it takes to find a take-off slot, but increasingly they will perceive the Government's refusal to train, to pay for that training, to expand planning for airports, to build a new runway and to do something radical about expanding services from the south-east, which will contribute to a dangerous and explosive situation. It may not happen today or next week, but happen it will.

The public will not accept the Government saying, "Thank you for producing a nice report, which we enjoyed reading. We have taken into account evidence from ATCs, the BAA and the CAA. With any luck, they might sort out the problem between them while they are making money." The Government know that that will not do. It is slightly worrying that their attitude is demonstrated by an eloquent, responsible, charming Under-Secretary of State —[Interruption.]—a man who is normally eloquent—but not the man who has responsibility for taking the decisions. The Secretary of State should be here, not least as a matter of courtesy to the Select Committee on Transport, which understands the urgency of this problem.

8.30 pm

Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)

It is timely that we should hold this debate in early July, just as we begin to reach the peak period for air traffic delays. It has always seemed to me, as we have been confronted by news of these delays over the past few years, that they have started to occur partly because of the inadequate air traffic control system—in no way do I equate that with an unsafe air traffic control system—and partly because of insufficient runway capacity.

The Civil Aviation Authority seems belatedly to have recognised the need for more air traffic controllers. We are told that recruitment is increasing, which, of course, is satisfactory. I am bound to remind the House, however, that in 1986 the same Civil Aviation Authority was telling us that there was a surplus of air traffic controllers. I cannot escape the conclusion that there have been elements of poor planning, poor management and poor forecasting which we must lay at the door of the CAA. To be fair, it is probable that inadequate funds have been made available for investment in that aspect of air traffic control. Although I criticise the CAA for its defects, I have a feeling that Government policy towards investment in this vital sphere has not always been what it could be.

There is a need swiftly to minimise the delays that upset our constituents. How realistic is it to expect that that is likely to happen? In my opinion, it is not realistic, although, I am pleased to say, air traffic should improve progressively as more air traffic controllers are taken on stream, more investment in sophisticated equipment becomes available and more liaison with the air traffic control system of Europe becomes the order of the day. I was particularly pleased to note a news item last week that we are—to be fair, on the British Government's initiative—moving more sharply in that direction than before.

I welcome the CAA's decision to publish the punctuality tables. I am informed that that is certainly not the view held by many airlines, whether scheduled services or charter airlines. The publication of the punctuality statistics will give publicity to a situation that has been kept under wraps. If it does what I predict it will do, which is to make the public aware of those airlines that are habitually unpunctual and that there is unpunctuality across the board, whether among charter airlines or scheduled airlines, I hope that pressure will be brought to bear by the public and the airlines on the CAA if it can be proved that a sizeable number of the delays are caused by inadequacies in the air traffic control system. This may mean that the whole thing moves in a circular direction and that the CAA, having decided to publish these punctuality tables for its good reasons, winds up discovering that the resulting criticism comes back to it, leading to pressure to improve its air traffic control facilities more swiftly.

Mr. Mans

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason for the delays should be published in the punctuality tables? If the CAA, through the air traffic control network, is responsible for the delays, that information should be in the initial tables, so there is no need for this rather long route back to the cause of the problem.

Mr. McCrindle

I would have no objection if the CAA decided that that was a reasonable addition to the publication of the punctuality tables. Unlike the airlines, which seem to be afraid of the publication of those tables, I welcome them as a means of bringing additional pressure to bear in improving the air traffic control system.

The charter airlines must look not just at bringing more pressure to bear to improve the air traffic control system but at their operational patterns. I wonder whether it is realistic to require a swift, three-journey turnaround each day before they can run an economic system. It has long seemed to me that if one slot is missed, progressive delays are almost inevitable throughout the remainder of the day.

I have two points that I should like to put before the House, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister might care to comment. First, should not the CAA authorise considerably less capacity than it has been prone to authorise until now? I recognise that this will not be a popular course to follow when enormous pressures are building up all the time for more and more opportunities to fly.

Secondly, the charter airlines may well be advised to reassess the basis of their operations. It has seemed to me over the past few years that, if it is the only way to run economically, we must start looking at the cost of the package tour. That proposal will not be welcomed by consumer groups or the public in general, but I remind the House that we are already on the way towards a Euro-directive that will provide for something close to no-fault liablility in relation to the hotel content of a package tour. The time may well have arrived to face a considerable increase in cost and opposition from consumer bodies because, arguably, the cost of package tours in the past has been too low. These are matters to which the charter airlines and tour operators must progressively turn their attention.

I am particularly worried by one symptom of the pressure on our aviation system. Last week, there were two occasions at Heathrow airport when four aircraft were involved in what I will call wing-clipping incidents. Happily, there were no casualties and no threat to passengers on board and there was only, according to reports, relatively minor damage to the aircraft, yet those incidents are symptomatic of the pressure on the system, caused to a large extent by the limited number of slots and the dash to get to and from the runways. That is another reason for saying that the pressure on the system is such that we should consider whether, in safety—clearly all of us would wish to promote safety—we can continue with the present slot allocation policy.

That leads me to a brief consideration of runways. Unlike British Airways and BAA plc, I believe that there must be an early decision on future runway capacity in the London area. Most commentators, including the CAA, believe that the case has been made for an additional runway at an airport south of the river. That led the Transport Select Committee to conclude that Gatwick would be the appropriate place, but if that should not happen, we must look at an amalgam of military airports south of the river or in some other way recognise that because pressure on the existing runway capacity is considerable—it will not lessen as we approach the 21st century—clear decisions must be taken soon.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing)

Can my hon. Friend tell us where in the report we would find the evidence that led the Select Committee to conclude that there should be a second runway at Gatwick?

Mr. McCrindle

As my right hon. Friend knows, the evidence is conflicting. There is no doubt that a case can be made for taking no decision on a second runway in the London area while continuing to emphasise the need for additional terminal capacity.

However, an interim statement was issued by the Civil Aviation Authority in January or February this year, in which it pointed fairly conclusively to its belief that by the time we reached the beginning of the next century the increase in the number of passengers wishing to use London airport would be such that, although terminal capacity was important, the provision of additional runway capacity would be unavoidable. If that is correct and one accepts the CAA's approach—although I must be fair and say that it was an interim report and we are expecting the final report soon—it is difficult to escape the conclusion that we should begin to take decisions now if we are to have an adequate runway system to run alongside the additional terminals that are, understandably, preferred by British Airways and by the British Airports Authority.

I remind the House that the Air Transport Users Committee, which is probably the closest we have to a consumer body in this area, has recently said: Flow management is as much a product of inadequate capacity as the inability of ATC to handle the requisite number of movements. If current demands for additional runway capacity in the London area are met, then it will provide some relief to the constant pressure on AT controllers of having to operate 3 of the 4 existing runways constantly at full capacity. Another runway would provide more options in the event of emergencies and reduce the need to bunch aircraft so closely together, which was the point I made in relation to the incidents last week at Heathrow airport.

BAA plc or, as my hon. Friend the Minister called it, the British Airports Authority, is much maligned. There are many reasons for people making representations against it, and I must take my fair share of the responsibility, having criticised it frequently in the past. If profit maximisation from the London area airports is clouding BAA's judgment about additional runway capacity, that should be taken into account in any decision that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to announce in relation to additional runway capacity. That is why the BAA would prefer terminal 5 to proceed and I must make it clear that I have no particular objection to that. However, it would not be correct to allow it to proceed without, at the same time, paying suitable attention to the need for additional runway capacity.

It would be fair to say that the BAA is often accused of ignoring the interests of its customers, whether those customers are airlines or people who are waiting to fly from airports. I take the view that, at the least, the BAA's attitude has been somewhat arrogant in the recent past and that that arrogance perhaps stems from BAA's near monopoly of airports in the London area.

I want to make a proposition in the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister may comment on it. When we privatised British Telecom as a near monopoly, we created Oftel. When we privatised British Gas as a near monopoly, we created Ofgas. I cannot see for the life of me, in retrospect, why we overlooked the opportunity to create a similar body so that the clients of the BAA, be they airlines or especially individual passengers, had a specific body to which they were able to complain as dissatisfied customers of British Gas and British Telecom are able to do.

There is no easy solution to the problem of air traffic control. I believe that we shall be near the middle of the 1990s before we have a system which is adequately staffed and which has sufficiently updated computerised equipment. That, in itself, is perhaps a criticism of past decisions or lack of decisions. I warmly commend the idea of having a body to which dissatisfied customers of airports could apply. That does not happen under the present set-up of the British Airports Authority.

8.44 pm

Mr. David Lambie (Cunninghame, South)

I want to deal with two specific points. But first I want to congratulate the Select Committee on Transport and its Chairman on the report and the Chairman's speech tonight.

I agree with roughly 95 per cent. of the report's recommendations, but I disagree violently with the remainder. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has already raised the point in an intervention in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) about the recommendation of the Select Committee to designate Glasgow airport as the gateway for Scotland and to replace Prestwick airport in its present position.

Not only from debates in the House but from your knowledge of Scotland you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the one thing the Scots like is fighting among themselves. No good wedding or funeral in Scotland fails to end up in a fight. Whenever families get together and have all had a good drink, we settle our problems and fight among ourselves. Here tonight the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport is putting forward a recommendation which he knows is controversial. He has already been attacked by two of his hon. Friends.

I appeal to the Government to stick to their policy because it is correct. The Scottish lowland airports policy is correct. Retaining Prestwick as the international gateway is correct and leaving the internal European routes and tourist routes to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen is correct. I ask the Minister to sustain that policy tonight.

Mr. Snape

As a mere Englishman, I hesitate to attend this wedding, funeral or other excuse for a punch up. However, does my hon. Friend think that Scottish transatlantic passengers would prefer to fly from Glasgow or Prestwick?

Mr. Lambie

I shall deal with that in the remainder of my speech because it is important.

I have been here long enough to know the history of my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston and to know the policies he has supported in the past. He has now been elevated to the position of Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport and he is becoming contaminated by mixing with too many English Members. When he was a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which carried out an inquiry into the Scottish lowland airports policy, nearly 100 per cent. of its recommendations were accepted by the Government and the Committee came to a unanimous decision. I do not know why my hon. Friend has now changed his mind.

Mr. David Marshall

The Chairman of the Select Committee at that time was my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) and it would not be dishonest to say that a fair bit of arm twisting went on. In addition, the situation has changed greatly since then. That recommendation was that Prestwick became a free port and a free trade zone. That was a novel suggestion which was worth trying, but unfortunately it failed. In addition, our hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said in his intervention that the policy of the Scottish Trades Union Congress was to support Prestwick. The STUC's policy is also to have one lowland airport in central Scotland serving the whole of central Scotland, so there are a number of contradictions in terms. Unfortunately, as usual, we are not addressing the crucial issue of what is in Scotland's best interests—gateway status for Glasgow airport.

Mr. Lambie

Yes, if we were to start again from virgin territory, it is correct to say that we would have only one airport for central Scotland which, in all probability, would be on the site suggested by the STUC, to the east of Glasgow. However, we are not starting from virgin territory. We are starting from having four airports in Scotland, three of which are in central Scotland. Each of those airports is a centre of economic activity and employment. We cannot change at a stroke and make a decision that will remove one of those main centres of activity, especially if it were to be Prestwick, which is in one of the unemployment blackspots of the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston knows that gateways are not decided unilaterally by the United Kingdom Government. Gateways and routes across the north Atlantic are determined by negotiations between the United States Government and the British Government. At present the Bermuda II agreement, which was signed in 1980 and which designated the routes or the gateways, is being renegotiated. My information is that those negotiations have come to a halt because the Bush Administration in the United States have not yet settled on a policy. Until the Bush Administration reach a decision, we can go only by the negotiations that took place at the beginning of the process.

The main feature of the present negotiations is the desire of the Americans to use Manchester airport more. They want more routes from Manchester into the United Kingdom and into Europe. That would certainly do away with some of the congestion at the London airports, but it would be to the detriment of Prestwick. As far as I know, the only objection by the British Government—or rather, by the Department of Transport—to the Americans having more routes via Manchester is that that might harm, not British airports, but British air companies, and especially British Airways. That is why there is a fight in the negotiations and that is why that fight will continue when the negotiations recommence. There is a fight between the Americans who want to develop out, from Manchester, and between the British Government who are saying, "If you do that, British Airways should have more routes or gateways into the interior of the United States".

I make that point because if Manchester develops—it must develop—in the way in which British Airways and certain other parties want, it can only be to the detriment of Prestwick and of every other Scottish airport that might hope to gain gateway status if that status is taken from Prestwick.

Therefore, all that my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston and his Committee have done in suggesting that we should discuss a new gateway for Scotland is to say that there will not be a gateway for Scotland. Indeed, Scotland has not yet been mentioned in the negotiations. The English officials at the Department of Transport are not interested in Scotland. They are interested only in the south-east and in maintaining British Airways' rights to gain more and more routes into the United States. Manchester will become the gateway to the north of Britain and instead of being able to fly from Prestwick or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston has suggested, from Glasgow, the people of Scotland will lose the gateway status of the Scottish airports and Manchester will become the gateway for north Britain. I have been to too many meetings at which those representing and supporting Manchester have suggested that Manchester is the gateway or the airport for north Britain not to take that as a serious challenge.

Therefore, I hope that the Government will maintain their policy of following the recommendations of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I hope that they will follow the present policy on the lowland airports of Scotland and maintain Prestwick as the gateway for Scotland.

I turn finally to British Airports Authority plc. When the Government considered privatising BAA, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs recommended that it should be privatised as a whole. We based our case on the fact that the Scottish airports had to maintain a connection with the London airports because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston has stated, one of the busiest routes in the world is that from Scotland to London, whether it be from Glasgow or Edinburgh down to London or the reverse. We suggested that BAA should be privatised as a whole so that we could maintain the link between the Scottish airports and Heathrow in particular.

I now realise that that was the wrong decision. If I could start again, I would say that BAA should be broken up and that the individual airports should be privatised and allowed to compete with one another. Of course, as a Labour Member, I cannot accept that policy generally. As a Labour Member, I believe that because the roads and railways are our common features, they belong to the people and should be paid for by the people. Similarly, I believe that airports should belong to the state and that they should be run by the state on behalf of the people. However, accepting the Government's policy of privatisation, I now realise that as Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs I was conned by Sir Norman Payne into believing that it would be in the best interests of all Scots if BAA were privatised as a whole in order to maintain links with London.

Mr. David Marshall

I was conned too.

Mr. Lambie

My hon. Friend says that he was conned as well. He too signed that report.

Like other hon. Members, I received a letter from Sir Norman Payne in which as well as stating: I have pleasure in enclosing BAA's 1989 Report and Accounts.", he stated: Passenger numbers rose to a record 68 million and BAA is committed to providing capacity to meet this and future demand with a substantial programme of capital investment: £395 million for the development of Stansted; £110 millon for the redevelopment of Terminal 3 at Heathrow; £47 million at Glasgow". That was about half the sum that he had told us he intended to commit to investment in Glasgow. Under the original investment plan, BAA was to spend more than £100 million on Glasgow. Glasgow is one of the most congested airports that I use; even compared with Heathrow, it is congested. It takes only one tourist plane to Palma to run late and the facilities at Glasgow airport grind to a halt.

I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston that if we are really interested in the development of Glasgow, we should not fight against Prestwick. Instead, we should fight against the British Airports Authority, which is not providing the necessary investment at Glasgow to allow the airport to fulfil even its present role, at the start of the route from Scotland to London and as an airport serving the tourist trade.

Let the Scots unite. Do not let us fight. Politically, we spend most of our time fighting the English in the south-east who vote Conservative and, unfortunately, usually give us a Conservative Government. But on this matter, let us unite to try to maintain not only national transport in and out of Scotland equal to that anywhere in the world but to maintain an international gateway, which I believe should be Prestwick.

9 pm

Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing)

I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on his chairmanship of the Select Committee and on the extremely large amount of work that the Committee has done in producing its excellent report. The Select Committees' work and our debates on the estimates give the House the opportunity to consider matters in depth in a way that is not normally possible. I am glad that the Liaison Committee agreed that this estimate should be debated in the terms set out in the Order Paper.

Let me make a couple of procedural points. The first concerns Back-Bench Members' time. We only have three estimate days in the entire year and to put on a major statement at the beginning of such business is very unfair. I hope that the Leader of the House, who I know is sympathetic in general to Select Committees, will bear that in mind in future.

Secondly, it has been pointed out that the Front-Bench representation is a little strange, given that this is a debate on airline safety. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is primarily responsible for roads and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has always shown a great interest in railways rather than in aviation. Having said that, I think that there is an important point to be made. One of the major concerns dealt with in the Select Committee's report was the question of delays. Very often such delays occur not at the airport but on the approaches to the airport, so perhaps it is not inappropriate that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East should take part. In that connection, I welcome the announcement made at Question Time today about the improvement of the communications with Manchester airport. I flew into Heathrow myself this morning and the greatest delay that I experienced was in queuing up to get a ticket for the Underground. Had a couple of extra windows been open, the whole process would have been speeded up, but as it was there was considerable congestion.

The subject is of great importance to the public, given their concern about aircraft safety and fear of aircraft accidents. I agree with the view that the Chairman of the Committee expressed earlier—that we should talk about near hits rather than near misses. There is grave concern about the matter, as well as the concern about delay.

This is a short debate and I shall make only one or two points. Although I strongly agree with many of the recommendations made by the Select Committee, I completely disagree with the view expressed in recommendation (x): We recommend that, in spite of the many difficulties and obstacles and the inevitable controversy, all efforts should be made to provide a second main runway at Gatwick. A reference to paragraph 58 follows. By an odd chance, I happened to visit Gatwick on the day when the Select Committee's report was published; indeed, I spent the morning in the control tower. The Committee did not visit Gatwick. No one looking at Gatwick from the control tower could possibly believe that a second runway would be sensible. To start with—this is not mentioned in the report—it would mean destroying and knocking down the second terminal at Gatwick, which has only recently been opened. The idea that the runway could be built at an angle to the other runway does not strike me as feasible. Moreover, the whole of the surrounding area is grossly overheated in economic terms—with serious housing and other problems. I am astonished that the Committee should have come up with that recommendation, which it seems to have done gratuitously and without referring to evidence to support its conclusions.

In my view, we need to press ahead as fast as possible with the development of Stansted. The Secretary of State went to the topping-out procedure at Stansted. We have the prospect of a fine new terminal there, and it is important to proceed with that as rapidly as possible. I certainly do not think that the idea of developing Gatwick by means of a second runway is feasible or sensible.

Mr. McCrindle

Does my right hon. Friend concede the point that I made earlier that the Civil Aviation Authority earlier this year said that, if additional runway capacity was necessary, it was most necessary south of the River Thames?

Mr. Higgins

That may be so. However, as my hon. Friend said earlier, he was referring to an interim report and I do not believe that it was supported by the evidence. The argument is very much along the lines that I have put forward with regard to the development of Stansted airport.

The Select Committee on Transport also considered aircraft routes and I hope that we can consider that matter very carefully. At the moment, aircraft routes very often cross main centres of population. That is an historic accident dating back many years and the routes on the south coast in particular are in the wrong places and cross areas where they cause the maximum noise disturbance.

I welcome the Select Committee's conclusion about night flights. The Select Committee took comprehensive evidence, including evidence from the British Airports Authority, that in some places night slots are not taken up and would not greatly help the problem of day-time congestion. We must consider the great noise problems that night flights still cause, despite the increased use of quieter aircraft.

The Select Committee also considered in great detail the use of military air space. It is extraordinary that large areas of air space which could be used are at present taken up for military purposes, not least along the south coast and several other routes to Europe.

I tabled a series of parliamentary questions about that some time ago. It is extraordinary that the Navy, in particular, takes up large sections of the English channel which might otherwise be reasonably used for civil purposes. Some of the replies to my questions about firing ranges seem to refute the old argument that what goes up must come down. I was assured that a great deal of firing was carried out, but no one had the remotest idea where the shells eventually landed. The Select Committee was right to draw attention to that matter because we must deal with the problems with aircraft routes, particularly to Europe. Obviously many other aspects must be considered in the light of the Select Committee report.

This debate gives us the opportunity to consider these matters in depth and in a way which was not possible before we had the Select Committee system set up on a departmental basis. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Shettleston and his colleagues on giving the House an opportunity to debate these matters in a more sophisticated manner than used to be possible.

9.7 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), my parliamentary colleagues on the Committee and the Clerk of the Committee on producing a first class report. I want to follow the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) who suggested that if there was any consensus in this debate it might be on the point that the Department of Transport should contact the Ministry of Defence and ask it seriously about its perception of its needs in 1989. There is a widespread feeling among hon. Members on both sides of the House that that should be done.

I want to speak up first of all for the air traffic controllers, those hard-pressed people who suffer enormous strain, who work often in terribly unsatisfactory and claustrophobic conditions in towers and elsewhere. To put it bluntly, some of us marvel at how they perform their jobs as well as they do and that there are not more accidents rather than the near misses and occasional accidents which hit the headlines.

I want to raise two of the Select Committee's recommendations with the Minister. Recommendation (vi) states: It seems to us that 17 years is too long for an ATCO II to have to wait to reach the top of the incremental salary scale and we trust that this point will be considered in further salary negotiations. The answer was: The CAA agrees that the current salary scales are too long. Negotiations with the IPCS are well underway and it seems possible that a complex package of changes may lead to a reduction in the number of years. What is the policy on people who reach the peak of the incremental scale? Certainly the anecdotal evidence is that there is great dissatisfaction about the time that people must wait for all kinds of promotions.

I direct the Minister's attention to paragraph No. (xxxv): We believe that the operation of ATFMUS"— that is, air traffic flow management units— will now steadily improve. There may well be some difficulties between European states, especially with the central ATFMU and we recommend that the Department of Transport keep a close watch on progress and be ready to step in, if necessary at ministerial level, should there be a need to resolve political problems". The Government's answer was that the CAA and the Department of Transport are keeping a close watch on progress on the central ATFMU. The Department will not hesitate to intervene at the appropriate level, should the need arise. That is a classic ambiguous statement. What are the Government going to do about the unit? Is the matter being tackled seriously?

Time is short, but I shall quickly raise two other matters. One relates to a question that I asked the Minister on 18 April 1988 about aircraft fire safety. I asked: what assessment he or the Civil Aviation Authority has made of the fire safety implications of considerable quantities of duty-free alcohol being carried aboard large passenger aircraft; if he will examine the feasibility of siting duty-free shops in arrival lounges only; and if he will make a statement. The Minister replied: The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for air safety regulation. It says that there is no evidence that carrying duty-free alcohol on passenger flights is in itself dangerous. We do not propose to review the siting of duty-free shops. I have a question about that. There may be no evidence, and it may or may not be true that duty-free alcohol is in itself dangerous, but we are not at all persuaded that it is not dangerous. It could be very dangerous. I do not think that I exaggerate in any way what we were told at Heathrow and elsewhere on various all-party visits. It is the considered judgment of many of those who bear major responsibilities in airlines that it is an extra hazard to carry considerable quantities of duty-free alcohol. No one is suggesting that people should not have a drink on board an aircraft. That is not the argument at all. The argument is totally different. It is about carrying enormous amounts of drink in racks and elsewhere, which, if arrangements were properly made, could surely be purchased at duty-free shops on landing. The only argument against it is that, when they land, passengers may be in more of a hurry than when they started out and would not want to go to duty-free shops. That boils down to a clear profit matter.

The issue that we have to face up to is whether profit on that basis is worth the extra possible danger of an accident happening, with heavy bottles tumbling out of racks and injuring heaven knows who, and creating an extra fire hazard.

On 18 April I asked the Minister: With regard to the Civil Aviation Authority, Christopher Tugendhat writes: Nevertheless, we would be happy to see any international moves to eliminate its carriage, such as may happen in the EEC over the forthcoming period. I asked whether there had been any further EEC discussion on this issue of the dangers of carrying a great deal of heavy alcohol. I went on: That quotation was from a letter dated 15 April. Can the discrepancy about the CAA's attitude be cleared up? How much sense does it make to have 500 bottles of booze in the cabin of a jumbo jet during an emergency, bearing in mind the risks with regard to fire and weight? The Minister replied: The hon. Gentleman does not provide any discrepancy when he reads out the letter from Christopher Tugendhat. Clearly, if 500 bottles are not being carried there could be a saving of £12,000 a year, and that point was made in 'The Green Capitalist', which was reviewed in the New Scientist. The important point is that where there is a safety risk the CAA takes action, but where there is not, it does not"—[Official Report, 18 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 540.] Are the Government quite sure that the CAA, when part of it says that there is no safety risk, is correct? What is the assessment of the Department of Transport? The Minister has access to considerable expert opinion, and I hope that he will at least say what the considered view of the Department of Transport is on the risks of carrying this massive amount of heavy glass and liquor hither and thither across the airways of the world. Would it not be much simpler, apart from anything else, in terms of fuel if this were tackled, and some arrangements made by those who want duty free to collect it on landing rather than hauling it across the skies?

In all this discussion, we should take into account that one of the things that would particularly help the Scots and those in the north of England would be greater railway investment. The most recent figures that the Library has for railway assistance as a percentage of gross national product are as follows: in Luxembourg, 2.88 per cent., in Belgium, 1.14 per cent., Italy 0.83 per cent.—

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Are the figures that the hon. Gentleman is reading out those for investment in the railways or those for public spending in the railways, including current subsidy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the House that the debate is not about railways.

Mr. Dalyell

Others wish to speak, so I shall send this table to the Minister. I should welcome a comment on it. The direct answer is that those are percentages of total state assistance. The grant paid under EEC regulations 1191/69 comes in a different set of figures. I should like some answers to the figures, in writing.

9.17 pm

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough)

Some of the contributions made tonight have summed up some of the problems facing civil aviation. Far too many decisions are dictated by interests other than that of the future of British civil aviation. We have had some internecine strife between Labour Members over Scotland. One suspects that that has little to do with what is the best answer for civil aviation in Scotland.

I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I understand his feelings, and they might be mine if my constituency were his, but many of the proposals about Gatwick are based on considerations other than the future of aviation. Those of us who supported the Chairman of the Select Committee genuinely tried to look at those interests rather than at the partisan interests. We leave it to others to put their gloss on the proposals.

Hon. Members have referred to extra runways in the south-east. We are proud that we have the first and second international airport, in terms of international movements, in Heathrow and Gatwick. We also have a national airline of which we should be very proud. However, the problem remains that if we cannot continue to allow that airline the use of an airport that will enable it to increase the number of flights, and if we try to run the first and second international airports in the world with only three runways each, that policy is doomed to failure. There are many airports in the United States with three or four runways that cater for far fewer passengers than we do and operate fewer movements than we do.

In our report we were not trying to upset the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing or trying to undermine the value of property around Gatwick. We merely said that it did not make a lot of sense for the second biggest international airport in the world to try to operate off one runway. If my right hon. Friend considers the evidence we took from witnesses, he will discover that on several occasions Committee members asked witnesses what they thought about the future of Gatwick, and invariably they answered that it should have a second runway.

The report is not just about runway capacity; the main consideration is the state of air traffic control and its future. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) said, we had no evidence to suggest that the Government had denied investment to the CAA. What was admitted, of course, was that the CAA was not good at managing what money it had been given. That is the key to it. Governments, quite rightly, are suspicious of giving too much money to those who do not spend it wisely. It is no good wringing one's hands and saying that we should have done this or that in the past, as the CAA has admitted that it had not done enough or was doing enough to prepare for the future.

We must admit that the explosion in travel that we have witnessed in the past few years was not foreseen by many people, least of all the airlines, which only a few years ago bemoaned the fact that the number of passengers was decreasing. When we visited Copenhagen, the head of air traffic control told us emphatically that he and his colleagues had not foreseen the enormous increase in the number of flights and in the number of people who wanted to fly that had occurred in a short time.

Under Mr. Tugendhat the CAA has now addressed itself, albeit late, to the problem. The Government have also suggested that they are willing to see that the CAA invests properly in the future. It will not be until 1994–95 that we have a level of air traffic control that will be able to cope even with current demand. Even then that provision will give us only some 30 per cent. extra capacity.

My main argument in support of the Committee's report is that 1994–95 will answer today's problems. I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), however, that by then we shall be faced with even greater problems, with a futher increase in demand. Therefore, we must think now about the investment and systems that will increase enormously capacity into the next century.

We were lucky enough to visit the Royal Aeronautical Establishment at Bedford and there we were told about a fourth dimensional system of air traffic control. We were also told, however, that much more research was needed and that it might take up to 15 years before that research became operative.

It is absolutely essential that we ensure that the research undertaken in this country is pushed ahead as far as possible, otherwise I suspect that the kind of problems that we have had with congestion in the air and congestion on the ground will be subjects to which the House will return again and again in the next 15 years.

I agree with those who have mentioned the problems of morale and staffing in air traffic control. I am convinced that, at long last, the CAA has addressed itself to what was becoming a serious issue. Those of us who talked to air traffic controllers became convinced that they were unsure of their future, unhappy about the way in which management related to them and extremely unhappy about their pay structure. The response in the report and the response of the present chairman of the CAA start to address those problems. I admit that, with the best will in the world, it will be impossible in the immediate future to recruit the number of air traffic controllers necessary to meet the anticipated demand.

The Committee says that we are on the right path, but mistakes have been made for which we shall pay dearly. Put in the widest context of moving people and transport generally, we have come to realise that, as the people of this country, Europe and the world become more affluent. they want to travel more and more. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that they can travel as they wish, safely and without undue delay. It is an enormous challenge, not merely to the CAA, traffic controllers and airlines, but to the Government.

9.25 pm

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

I am sorry that we have been prevented from hearing the contributions of two hon. Members who are still waiting to speak. One of the most annoying aspects of debates in this House is how often people sit patiently without being allowed to contribute. I join other hon. Members from both sides of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and the Committee on their report, the merits of which can be measured by the fact that the Government's response has been reasonable and detailed. That is not always so when such reports are published. I do not say that the Opposition agree with all the Government's responses, but, unusually, the Government have shown some signs of forethought and many of the Committee's eminently sensible suggestions have elicited reasonable responses from the Department of Transport.

The debate can be broken down into three main sections. We have heard much about the problems of air traffic control. There has been unanimity among Committee Members, and hon. Members in this debate, that the problems of congestion in the air are long standing and are unlikely to be resolved in the near future. Great hope has been put on Eurocontrol for the future. It is worthwhile for all countries, including our own, to give up some sovereignty of their own air space for the common good.

Eurocontrol has been around for almost 30 years. Although Government Ministers these days make optimistic noises and projections for the future, it would have been possible to introduce what they are advocating at virtually any time over the past 30 years. The fact that we appear, belatedly, to be moving forward does nothing to alleviate the enormous congestion problems that we shall face over the next five, six or seven years.

There is some degree of unanimity on the attitude of the Civil Aviation Authority towards air traffic control problems. It was pointed out from both sides of the House that, as recently as two years ago, the authority talked about redundancy and early retirement for air traffic controllers. Belatedly—again, this is welcomed by both sides of the House—the authority has embarked on a detailed recruitment campaign to combat shortages and the overwork from which many air traffic controllers suffer.

Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston referred to safety. He said that there was no concrete evidence to show that safety was at risk. I think that both sides of the House would welcome that. We are all concerned about air safety. For understandable reasons, newspapers pass through phases in which certain issues appear to be topical. Last year, they entered a phase in which air misses or, as my hon. Friend described them, near hits, were thought topical and newsworthy. Thankfully and mercifully, despite the enormous increase in air traffic over the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, there has never been a collision involving a civil airliner over this country. It is enormously to the credit of those responsible for these matters that travel by air is as safe as it is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston said that the Secretary of State had reacted reasonably to the report and that the problems were not all his fault because he had inherited them. That is entirely appropriate: the right hon. Gentleman inherited everything else, including his seat, so why not a few problems too? We welcome his fairness in dealing with some of them.

The former British Airports Authority came in for some stick in the debate. BAA plc has few friends these days and probably does not deserve many. I notice that this morning's Daily Mail, under the heading Keep your eyes on the runway, BAA", pans the BAA once again for its obsession with profit making—some might say profiteering—from some aspects of airport management. Yesterday's Observer carried a full article headed: The airport authorities regret the late departure of your flight, but will be more than delighted to overcharge you for car parking and duty-free goods, whisky, cigarettes, perfumes. …". That may sound a bit strong, but it is a view shared by many people.

Many of us believe that the BAA should never have been privatised in the first place, a belief that has been underlined by the sort of complaints—

Mr. Mans

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all the activities in which the BAA is now involved and about which he complains were carried on before privatisation? They were profitable then and they are profitable now, and there is no evidence to suggest that they affect BAA's role as a provider of airports in any way.

Mr. Snape

I dispute that. Those responsible for running bus and coach services to and from airports owned by BAA plc might well take a view different from the sanguine one advanced by the hon. Gentleman. Privatisation has enabled Sir Norman Payne and his chief executive to do wonders for their salaries and to exploit the captive market of passengers and those who operate airport services.

I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) say that if price restraint on take-off and landing charges and the various other airside charges were eased BAA might not need to fleece the franchisee as it does now. That shows a touching faith in Sir Norman Payne, for which he would be grateful, but I do not share it. Releasing BAA from those constraints would merely enable it to exploit the captive market in the air that it now exploits fairly well on the ground. Any attempt to relax the restriction will, I hope, be opposed by the Minister.

Airport security is also a serious matter. The Minister will know of the degree of public worry about it. I understand from newspaper reports that the United States authorities have developed a machine capable of detecting Semtex in luggage and in the containers placed in aircraft holds. If the Federal Aviation Authority decides to make the use of such machines compulsory, I presume that some of the 40 or so machines that are or order will be installed in Europe. I understand that American airlines intend to install these machines in Paris, Frankfurt and London. What are the Government doing to ensure that passengers on British or other airlines have their luggage screened by these machines? I understand that if the Federal Aviation Authority so rules screening will be carried out only on the luggage owned by passengers on American airlines. That is because the machines will be owned by the American airlines or the United States Government—I know not which. That worries many hon. Members and perhaps the Minister can tell us where we stand on the installation of similar machines and whether passengers on British or foreign airlines using international airports will have their luggage similarly screened.

The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) was critical about some aspects of the charter airline business and I take issue with him on some points. He should bear in mind that for millions of people their one flight per year is by a charter airline to the sun. The suggestion that delays can be laid at the door of the three-round-trips syndrome so beloved of charter airlines is unfair. Britannia Airways supplies many hon. Members, including me, with a parliamentary briefing on air traffic control delays. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman received a copy. Obviously Britannia Airways has its own axe to grind and one reads such briefings with one's tongue fixed firmly in one's cheek. The briefing says: Taking a typical Saturday last summer, 23 July 1988, analysis of Britannia's operational records reveals the following data and causes for delays. Total number of flights: 202. Total delays over one hour: 107. Total delays by ATC problems: 104. It lists the reasons for delays to its other three aircraft, and none of them was due to the three-round-trips syndrome about which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar complains. The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about aviation and the travel business generally. I see from the the declaration of Members' interests that he is a director of Hogg Robinson (Travel) Ltd. where I am sure his expertise is welcome. It takes enormous courage for anyone who works in the travel agency business and who presumably benefits from cheaper travel as a result to advocate massive increases for millions of other people. It is a bit foolhardy but, as I say, it demonstrates enormous courage on the part of the hon. Gentleman and I congratulate him on it.

Some Conservative Members made the ritual plea for liberalisation. I hope that in that context we can talk about the additional air traffic control problems that such moves are likely to create for flights originating and terminating in Europe as well as for flights further afield. The problems that liberalisation are likely to bring include an increase in the number of smaller aircraft which, of course, still have to pass through an air traffic control system. I hope that at some time in the future—we shall not have time tonight—we can debate the additional problems that such liberalisation might mean for air traffic control.

I should like to ask about the liberalisation of services worldwide. All too often the Government seem to act as agents for British Airways. I realise that British Airways plays an important role in the British economy, but it is a privatised company and welcomes, as it puts it, the embraces of worldwide competition. For example, there has been pressure and protracted negotiations about increasing capacity on the routes to Singapore which have remained unchanged since 1976. Not a great deal of progress appears to have been made. British Airways objects to an increase in the number of flights by other airlines from Heathrow. If British Airways is to compete in a worldwide market, the competition should include more flights by foreign-owned airlines from Heathrow.

The debate, of necessity, has been somewhat truncated. I join the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in deploring the Government's habit of making a statement in prime time, which diverts the attention of the media from important debates such as this and reduces the time that can be spent upon these important matters. The Government are quite good at that, but the practice is to be deplored.

Once again I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston and the Committee on a detailed, cogently argued and well-produced report. It deserves the Government's serious response. I hope that many of its

9.40 pm

The Minister for . Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley)

We expect and demand air traffic services to meet a very high standard of safety. The primary function of air traffic control is to prevent collisions and keep aircraft apart. The Committee, as its Chairman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), said at the beginning of his very important speech, found that National Air Traffic Services has an admirable safety record. The evidence shows that the number of risk-bearing air misses or near hits has declined substantially over the years, despite the massive growth of traffic in recent years. I join those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have paid tribute to the air traffic controllers and their assistants who have coped with the rapid growth of traffic while maintaining high professional standards.

To respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), since 1987 the Civil Aviation Authority has moved away from a direct link with the Civil Service and towards a communications policy that is spelt out in the appendix to the Government's response to the Select Committee, with the result that morale is improving and the CAA's opportunity to deal with the unions in the interests of those who work in National Air Traffic Services has improved.

Mr. Dalyell

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Bottomley

I do not intend to give way to the hon. Gentleman on that point because I wish to answer some of the other points that have been made in the debate. As he said at the end of his speech, we can follow up some of these points in correspondence.

I am sad that my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) were unable to make a speech in the debate. Both of them would have been able to contribute a great deal of expertise as they both take a great interest in the subject. However, that is one of the penalties of a relatively short debate. As for the family discussion among the Scots, if we had managed to sort out the previous Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the present Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport through a return to the names that their constituencies bore before they were changed to Cunninghame, South and Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, we should have had time for speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre and for Ruislip-Northwood.

The Committee's report and the Government's response have been rightly praised—not that everyone will agree with every point in either the report or the response. Both the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority join the Committee in basing their views on the facts. Perhaps the greatest tribute that I can pay to the Select Committee is that it got at the facts and then introduced personal, local or national interests.

In response to the Committee's report, we made it clear that we broadly agree with its analysis of the problems facing the air traffic control system and that we accept the majority of the recommendations. We have yet to respond to a number of the recommendations because they require further study. We shall be able to go further when we have received formal advice from the CAA.

We are giving careful consideration to the Committee's recommendations about the future status of the National Air Traffic Services. The possibility of splitting off the National Air Traffic Services from the Civil Aviation Authority should be examined. The Committee will not wish us to rush into a snap decision. Reviews are demanding in terms of management effort. National Air Traffic Services has a great deal on its plate at present.

We have also received a copy of the report prepared for Lord Rawlinson's group. We welcome that independent report as a contribution to the current debate on air space issues. We shall study it over the coming weeks, along with the advice of the CAA and the Select Committee.

While acknowledging that the record of air traffic control safety was "extremely good", the Select Committee rightly was anxious to ensure that the reporting and investigating machinery should be as comprehensive and objective as possible. It is worth reminding the House that if all the miles covered on roads were travelled in the air, instead of 5,000 people dying each year, the figure would be about 650. We are dramatically safer in the hands of the airline and air traffic control than we are on the roads. I was reminded by re-listening to "At the Drop of a Hat" by Michael Flanders and Donald Swann that the airline coach drivers have instructions to make sure that statistics are kept the right way round. To make the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) feel more at home, if all the miles travelled on the roads were travelled on the railways only 150 people would die each year, so I pay tribute to the railways too.

The Committee recommended the creation of new, free-standing machinery which would be independent from the CAA. We have not been able to accept that in full. We acknowledge the need to develop the system of reporting, investigation and assessment of air misses to cover incidents reported by controllers as well as those reported by pilots. We believe that the new machinery set up by the chairman of the CAA to deal with controller-reported incidents will complement the highly-respected work which the joint airmiss working group does on pilot-reported air misses. One of the reasons why the media has gone off the over-reporting or hyped-up reporting of near hits is the openness of the system. There is no risk-free way of moving and if we can be open about risks we shall get more common sense and factual reporting rather than exaggeration.

The transfer of responsibility for investigating air misses from NATS to the CAA safety regulation group goes a long way towards meeting the Committee's concern that investigation should be independent and objective. We recognise the important part the Department has played in the work of the air accident investigation branch. That was demonstrated by the report on the air miss over Lydd last year.

The Committee's initial concern was with air traffic control safety and the adequacy of the air traffic control system to provide a safe service. I recognise that many other points have been raised in the debate. I cannot answer them all, so I shall answer some of them by correspondence. I want to ensure that the public expectation that the National Air Traffic Services will handle the traffic expeditiously and efficiently will be achieved with safety as the priority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made that point repeatedly and he would want me to repeat it tonight.

The system has not been able to keep pace with the rapid growth in traffic experienced in the past few years, mainly because of growth in the economy rather than deregulation or liberalisation. Severe delays were experienced last summer and may emerge again this summer. That is not only a United Kingdom problem. People quote Britannia Airways, but they are not talking about air traffic control in Britain alone. There is similar experience overseas. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) was absolutely right in suggesting that perhaps more airlines providing air services to charter companies should build in recovery time as the railways do. Those who expect to run their planes without anything going wrong are working on a false expectation. My hon. Friend's point was brave, sensible and right.

There is a problem with the drive towards further liberalisation if we get things moving wrong. Air traffic control authorities in Europe will find any excuse to cling to outdated restrictions on tariffs and market access. The immediate causes of air traffic control congestion are diverse, ranging from spasmodic industrial action in different parts of the continent to failures which occur from time to time in air traffic control computer systems. But the fundamental cause lies in the shortage of air traffic controllers. For substantial periods of the year the systems all work close to capacity. There is little slack to fall back on when things go wrong. A failure or shortcoming in one place quickly produces a knock-on effect across Europe.

The Government, airlines, airport operators and the providers of air traffic control services have all been planning for years on the assumption that the demand for air transport will continue to rise, but even then there were long delays in airports last summer. It was known that there would be pressure on the system. Air traffic controller disputes in some countries are a sad fact of life in aviation today. Disruption on that scale had not been anticipated and we have all been forced to rethink our approach to the problem of congestion.

The responsibility for planning and operating air traffic services rests on the civil side with the CAA, with Ministry of Defence involvement on the military side. The point which has been made about military air space has been dealt with by the dangerous areas users' group, and perhaps we shall put out a bit more information on that. The possible gains may be mildly exaggerated when one looks into the facts, as I did. We heard about the increased number of trainee air traffic controllers and the bringing back into service of those who are training them; that was a useful point on which the Committee built. Additional resources are available in the United Kingdom.

Last summer's delays have brought home to everyone concerned the interdependence of European air traffic control authorities. I was grateful for the remarks by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East on that point. Flights could not leave United Kingdom airports because of congested airways on routes to Europe. Flights from the continent to north America were delayed because of congestion in the United Kingdom's air space. Few countries in Europe could genuinely claim to be free from blame, and the problems grew as the summer wore on. The days are past when such problems can be tackled by one country alone. It has been widely recognised that we must improve co-operation and co-ordination between European countries.

Last year, the United Kingdom held the presidency of Eurocontrol. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided that we must take the lead in strengthening the organisation and give it the chance to take necessary measures. Last July, my right hon. Friend wrote to all European Community Transport Ministers who had not joined Eurocontrol to persuade them to do so. We were pleased that Italy and Spain subsequently announced that they intended to join, and they are now in the process of doing so. From outside the Community, Turkey and Malta have recently joined and Cyprus is likely to become a member by the end of the year. That increased membership will strengthen Eurocontrol and help it to play the crucial role that we foresee for it.

In September, my right hon. Friend wrote to all west European Transport Ministers proposing the creation of a central flow management unit to co-ordinate flow throughout west Europe. That proposal was unanimously approved at a meeting of the European civil aviation conference in Frankfurt in October. Eurocontrol was given the job of building and operating the system. Last week, Eurocontrol Ministers approved the detailed implementation plan. The nucleus of the central flow management unit has been set up. We now look to Eurocontrol to implement the phased introduction of the system over the next four years.

Many people are calling on us to go a stage further by adopting a unified system of air traffic control across Europe. A sudden transfer of all responsibility to a single European authority is not feasible, but the Government have not ruled it out as a long-term objective. The priority is to devise and implement practical measures that will improve co-operation and co-ordination between national systems. It would be counterproductive to divert the efforts and energies of those working in the sector away from these practical measures on to what might turn out to be an illusory ideal.

One of the most important recommendations in the Select Committee's report was that more emphasis should be placed on Eurocontrol. In our presidency year, we helped to revitalise Eurocontrol, which, as the Committee said, has had a chequered history. The highly successful meeting of Eurocontrol's permanent commisson last week confirmed that Eurocontrol is rapidly assuming a major role. There is now widespread political backing for it throughout Europe, and it seems to be rising to the challenge.

My right hon. Friend's priority, on behalf of the nation, is to improve co-operation, acting through Eurocontrol. If that is successful, Europe's air traffic control systems will become more integrated and interdependent. Increasingly, decisions will be taken on a common basis. Our approach to Europe as a whole is to take practical steps, and, once they are agreed, to make them stick. Experimentation with grand designs is not an option when the safety of air transport is at stake.

We should try to build on practical safety measures. The hon. Member for Linlithgow, if I may have his attention for a moment, again raised the question of bottles, which are normally made of glass and contain liquid oxygen of 40 per cent. proof, dropping on to passengers' heads. It is ludicrous for people who may have spent between £200 and £1,000 on a journey to try to save £1 or £2 by carting a weight from one part of the world to another. It is just as ludicrous that they carry so much luggage. I am concerned about things falling out of lockers on to people's heads, but I am more concerned about a person with a 20 kg suitcase than one person with a bottle. I hope that more people will ensure that the bottles that they carry are made of plastic, and that includes their shampoo bottles. Obviously, there is some risk of carrying such stuff around, but it is pretty small. I have seen one tragic major air crash. I do not think bottles of booze made much difference to it. People should realise that international agreement would be needed for any significant change, because all air lines, not only British ones, must be controlled. The opportunity of more competition and the point about most terminals needing to be rebuilt will not go away. People should follow the example set by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and myself and not buy the stuff. There are better things to do with time and money—

Mr. Lambie

What about Scotch whisky exports?

Mr. Bottomley

Whenever possible, I do drink whisky.

Mr. Dalyell

rose—

Mr. Bottomley

I have dealt with two points made by the hon. Gentleman and I have not dealt with some points made by other hon. Members.

The friends of Prestwick—

Mr. Dalyell

rose—

Mr. Bottomley

It would perhaps be less selfish of the hon. Member for Linlithgow if he were to let me deal with the points made by three of his hon. Friends.

The Government agree with the majority Scottish view that Prestwick should be the international gateway airport across the Atlantic. Several services available from Glasgow to European destinations have not been taken up. The Government negotiate the routes. It is up to the airlines to use them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) rightly said that much is happening. We want to ensure that the growth in movements is accompanied by increased safety. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made a classic speech, starting with the Romans. She went on to talk about the importance of subsidies, but it is investment that is important. That answers another point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he is still listening. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) pointed out that some of the Committee's conclusions would not have the wholehearted agreement of all involved. The Government's policy on Gatwick was made clear in our response to the report.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) talked about some of the issues involved in this form of transport. It is important to make sure that we continue to increase the safety of all forms of transport. I remind the House again that the number of people who tragically lose their life in air and rail crashes pales in comparison with the number killed on the roads. If we can make roads equally safe by paying attention to details, and if we can improve the road network in the same way as air traffic control systems have improved, we will be doing our job. We are not saying to people that they should not travel. More people want to travel and they should have the opportunity to do so safely. We must work in increasing co-operation with our fellow Europeans and others around the world.

I apologise to hon. Members who have not had the opportunity to speak and to those whose points I have not answered in detail. In view of the excellent report and the Government's response, which has generally been welcomed, it is right to allow the Chairman of the Select Committee to have the last word.

9.56pm

Mr. David Marshall

Unfortunately, this has been a short debate, but an important one. I congratulate hon. Members who have participated, and I commiserate with those who could not take part.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) about the importance of estimates debates. I hope that the House will give serious consideration to increasing the frequency of such debates. That is important and would benefit, in particular, Back Benchers who often do not have the chance to debate the fruits of their labours in Select Committees.

The debate highlighted several matters of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is encouraging to see how much common ground there is between us on many aviation and transport issues. There is not such a great deal that separates us. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said, it was amusing that the greatest disputes and divergences of opinion were between Members of the same parties on two different issues. Scottish Members disagreed on which airport should be Scotland's international gateway and Conservative Members from the south-east on whether there should be a second runway at Gatwick or anywhere else in the south-east.

My hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) concentrated on the need for safety, for better man management and for improvements for staff, to make better use of regional airports and to look closely at the operations of the British Airports Authority plc and British Airways. They are all extremely important matters in debates such as this and vital to the future of civil aviation.

The hon. Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and for Wellingborough and the right hon. Member for Worthing took on board the problems of 1992 and spoke about how Eurocontrol should develop in future, the problems of runway capacity in the south-east, punctuality in chartered airline scheduling, flight paths over major centres of population, night flights, the use of air space, especially military air space, near misses and the BAA.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) summed up the debate from the Opposition Front Bench in his inimitable style and made a number of telling points.

I hope that the Secretary of State will consider anew the points that have been made in the debate. This is one of the few Transport Select Committee reports to be debated on the Floor of the House. With two reports to be published later this year—one, in two weeks, on airport security and the other, at the end of the year, on roads for the future—I am sure that this will not be the last such debate. The Minister tried his best to answer a number of the points made by hon. Members. I hope that he will keep his word and that he will enter into correspondence with hon. Members and let us have the answers to the points that were raised. I am sure that we will all be grateful to him for that.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Estimates 1989–90, Class VI, Vote 3 and Class VIII, Vote 2.