§ 7. Mr. MillerTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the potential proceeds of privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. [582]
§ Sir George YoungI have made no estimate of potential proceeds from privatising National Air Traffic Services.
§ Mr. MillerIt was interesting that the Minister, in an earlier reply, did not respond to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) about the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air Force. When the right hon. Gentleman considers the proposal's financial benefits, will he carefully examine the practical ways in which civil air traffic control and the Ministry interrelate? It would be ludicrous to create a charging policy that would work in those circumstances. Does the Minister not realise that the majority of people are totally against that crass privatisation?
§ Sir George YoungA number of representations were in favour of it. The reply that I gave on Friday was on behalf of the whole Government, so of course the Ministry of Defence agrees with the strategy that I have outlined, and its needs will be met under the new strategy of a privatised NATS.
§ Sir Alan HaselhurstIs not the most obvious benefit to be derived from privatising National Air Traffic Services that it would provide the best guarantee that moneys would be forthcoming for NATS's huge investment programme?
§ Sir George YoungMy hon. Friend has succinctly summarised the best argument for privatisation, which will free management investment decisions from public sector constraints.
§ Mr. FoulkesI am sorry that I was not present for Question 3, but I was delayed—not by air traffic control but by the appalling London underground system. Irrespective of the arguments for and against privatisation, will the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that the Government will continue to support the two-centre strategy that is vital for the future of those of my constituents who are among the 650 workers at Prestwick? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing with the two private funding initiative bids that he received some months ago?
§ Sir George YoungThe Oceanic bid is proceeding. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place 317 earlier when I replied to Question 3. I say out of courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, who doubtless for good reasons was not present at 2.38 pm, that Sir Malcolm Field, the newly appointed chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, is conducting a review of the two-centre strategy. He is aware of the strong feelings in Scotland about Prestwick, and he hopes to complete his review at an early date, so that the uncertainty to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be brought to a speedy end.
§ Mr. FabricantWhen the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) flies down from Scotland and finds that his aircraft is circling above Heathrow airport, he may not be aware that his plane is unable to land because the UK has only half the density of aircraft in the air as the United States. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason for that lack of air traffic density is that the UK does not have the latest computers in air traffic control? Would not privatisation be the best way to provide the funds that would allow greater air traffic density and less in-air delays?
§ Sir George YoungDensity is a slightly different issue from the best form of air traffic control. We are building at Swanwick a modern en route centre that will have the latest technology. My hon. Friend is right in thinking that the ability to access funds without the constraints of public expenditure requirements is the main reason for privatising NATS.