'.—(1) This section applies in any time of actual or imminent hostilities or of severe international tension or of great national emergency.728
(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide for—to be taken into his possession and used by or for the purposes of the armed forces of the Crown.
- (a) any aerodrome, and
- (b) any aircraft, machinery, plant, material or thing found in or on any aerodrome,
(3) An order under this section may, for the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of the order—
- (a) provide for the detention of aircraft;
- (b) make such other provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for securing such detention.
(4) A person must comply with an order under this section notwithstanding any other duty, however arising.
(5) An order under this section may, for the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of the order, provide for—
- (a) persons to be guilty of offences in such circumstances as may be specified in the order;
- (b) persons to be liable on conviction of those offences to such penalties as may be so specified.
(6) The power under subsection (5) does not include power—
- (a) to provide for offences to be triable only on indictment;
- (b) to authorise the imposition, on summary conviction of an offence, of any term of imprisonment or of a fine exceeding the statutory maximum;
- (c) to authorise the imposition, on conviction on indictment of an offence, of a term of imprisonment exceeding two years.
(7) Any person who suffers direct injury or loss arising from compliance with an order under this section is entitled to receive compensation from the Secretary of State.
(8) The compensation must be of an amount agreed by the person and the Secretary of State or (in default of agreement) of an amount decided by—
- (a) an arbitrator appointed by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (if the proceedings are to be held in England and Wales),
- (b) an arbiter appointed by the Chairman of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland (if the proceedings are to be held in Scotland), or
- (c) an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chancellor (if the proceedings are to be held in Northern Ireland).'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, at end of subsection (4) insert—
'including any duty arising under or by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972 (as amended).'.New clause 27—Exercise of powers, duties, and functions under Part I—'The powers, duties and functions given or imposed on the Secretary of State or the CAA in sections 1, 2, 38, 49, 80, 81, (Disposal of shareholding in the designated company) and (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.) may be exercised or fulfilled notwithstanding anything contained in the European Communities Act 1972 as subsequently amended.'.Amendment No. 382, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at beginning insert—'Notwithstanding anything in the European Communities Act 1972 as subsequently amended,'.729 Amendment No. 147, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—'(aa) to ensure that air traffic services are not provided or managed in a manner which might prejudice the national security of the United Kingdom;'.Amendment No. 383, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, at beginning insert—'Notwithstanding anything in the European Communities Act 1972 as subsequently amended,'.Amendment No. 384, in clause 38, page 24, line 14, at beginning insert—'Notwithstanding anything in the European Communities Act 1972 as subsequently amended.'.Amendment No. 388, in page 24, line 29, at end insert—'orGovernment amendments Nos. 125 and 126.(c) to relinquish the licence;'.Amendment No. 385, in clause 49, page 32, line 1, at beginning insert—
'Notwithstanding anything in the European Communities Act 1972 as subsequently amended,'.Amendment No. 389, in page 32, line 21, at end insert—'(5A) The rights accorded to the Crown by the special share under this section shall not be subject to any limitation that may be imposed through the European Communities Act 1972 as amended.'.Government amendments Nos. 127 and 128.Amendment No. 386, in clause 80, page 50, line 30, at beginning insert—
'Notwithstanding anything in the European Communities Act 1972 as subsequently amended,'.Amendment No. 387, in clause 81, page 50, line 33, at beginning insert—'Notwithstanding anything in the European Communities Act 1972 as subsequently amended,'.Government amendments Nos. 134, 129, 135 to 138 and 130 to 133.
§ Mr. RaynsfordThe theme that unites the new clauses and amendments is the important subject of national security. The Government have proposed amendments designed to improve the Bill further in respect of national security; the Opposition have proposed amendments that are essentially destructive, and based on false assumptions about the interplay between the PPP and national security. I intend to compare and contrast the proposals, because they highlight important differences between the Government's approach and that of the official Opposition.
8.30 pm
The Bill already contains substantial measures designed to protect the national interest in respect of security. Clause 81 empowers the Secretary of State to give directions to a range of people engaged in aviation and related activities in times of hostilities, severe international tension or great national emergency. Contravention, or failure to comply with a direction, is an offence punishable on indictment by unlimited fines and/or imprisonment.
730 New clause 5 enables the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument, but not subject to parliamentary procedure, to provide for taking possession of, and using for the purposes of the armed forces, any aerodrome, aircraft, or other things in or around the aerodrome in the event of actual or imminent hostilities, severe international tension or great national emergency. In other words, it is a power not to direct, but to intervene directly.
An order made under that power may include provision to secure compliance with the order, including the detention of aircraft. There is an entitlement to compensation from the Secretary of State in the event of any person suffering direct injury or loss arising from compliance with an order under the new clause. In default of an agreement between the claimant and the Secretary of State, provision is made for the amount to be settled by arbitration.
The new clause allows for greater flexibility in the choice of action that may be taken in times of hostilities. The existing power in clause 81 requires directions to be given to persons as a pre-condition for securing various controls. The new clause allows possession to be taken of aircraft or aerodromes that are the subject of an order without the need first to identify their owners or operators or to give notice. Further, instead of obliging a recipient of a direction to secure that assets are taken into the possession of the Crown, the new clause enables the Crown to take possession directly without relying on the recipient complying.
Amendments Nos. 125 to 133 are consequential to the new clause. Amendments Nos. 134, 137 and 138 substitute the new term "undertaking" for "business" to match the language in Council regulation 2407/92. Amendment No. 135 omits the requirement for prior consent of the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions before a prosecution. Amendment No. 136 is consequential in that it applies to the new clause the definitions in clause 82 and provides for the order to be a statutory instrument not subject to parliamentary procedure.
Those are wide-ranging powers that reflect the importance that the Government attach to national security measures. Although the contents of new clause 5 were largely present in the Civil Aviation Act 1982, we have introduced it alongside the direction-making power to ensure that the Government have available to them all the means that they may need to defend the national interest at such times. Those are real, tangible protections. I commend them to the House.
By contrast, the Opposition seek only to fuel fear and suspicion. New clause 27 and the accompanying amendments are simply mischief making. They purport to ensure that the United Kingdom can exercise the functions and powers of transfer and direction under the clauses on the mistaken assumption that what we are proposing would conflict with European law, that European law will develop in such a way as to give rise to such a conflict, or that EU institutions will take over, or replace the Eurocontrol treaty arrangements.
Those matters were debated ad nauseam in Committee. I hope, although not with great confidence, that we will not end up covering the same ground in the same detail tonight. Although I respect and share the enthusiasm for national security that the hon. Member for North Essex 731 (Mr. Jenkin) demonstrated in Committee, I tired of dealing with his fanciful interpretations of European Community law and his scaremongering on Community competence. Indeed, some of us in the Committee suspected that the mere mention of the term "Eurocontrol" was enough to elicit a Pavlovian reaction from him and some of his hon. Friends. The best interests of UK air traffic services are served not by flogging that particular dead horse, but by putting NATS in a position to benefit from the changes that will and must come about in Europe.
As many of us know from our travels throughout the continent, all is not well in the state of Denmark—or, indeed, in France, Italy, Switzerland and a number of other countries in the core area of Europe—with regard to air traffic management. The reasons are many and complex, but among the most important is the fragmentation of the system, with efficient airspace management being constrained by national boundaries, inflexible allocation of airspace between military and civilian use, and continuing under-investment in the air traffic control capacity needed to meet the relentless growth in air traffic movements.
In Europe, there are three key organisations in air traffic management: Eurocontrol is the European organisation for the safety of air navigation and has 28 members; ECAC—the European civil aviation conference; and the European Union. However, the EU's role is very limited, being confined largely to technical standards and the like.
The Government believe that Europe can and must do better. The air traffic management system is crucial for the economic well-being of the continent generally and for the United Kingdom particularly. We are therefore active members of Eurocontrol. There is broad support for the EU's early accession to Eurocontrol.
The Government are also keen to work with the European Commission on its ideas for "A Single Sky for Europe". We do not necessarily agree with every word in the document, but it represents a genuine attempt to deal with the serious problem that I mentioned earlier, and it offers the United Kingdom a real opportunity to have influence over the way in which those issues will be tackled.
§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)Does the Minister agree that there is all the difference in the world between the facilitation of air traffic by better use of air traffic control systems and a more efficient Eurocontrol and the assumption by the European Union of a common European airspace? Airspace is a fundamental element of national security and of the sovereignty of individual nation states. Will he help the House to understand whether Ministers are clear in their own minds that the way in which the European Commission is developing its outlook on those matters could have a profound impact on our sovereignty and nationhood?
§ Mr. RaynsfordI agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am glad that he shares my view about the importance of continuing to work actively within Eurocontrol to develop the current arrangements and tackle some of the weaknesses. I made it clear that we do not necessarily agree with every element of the concept of the single sky for Europe. However, we want to engage in a constructive dialogue to ensure that there is effective movement across the continent as a whole.
732 Nothing could be more damaging both for the economic future of Europe—the United Kingdom is intimately connected with that—and for the safety of air traffic and the development of air traffic services than a failure to achieve the necessary integration when that is required, particularly in bearing down on some of the problems and pressure points in current arrangements. We shall therefore approach the matter pragmatically, but positively—engaging in Europe to improve the standard of services.
§ Mr. JenkinTo pursue the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—I have pressed the Minister on that before—will the Minister acknowledge that if the EU becomes a member of Eurocontrol, it will acquire exclusive competence both externally and internally in all matters to do with airspace policy? When the European Commission joined the general agreement on tariffs and trade, it took control of trade talks. When it joined the international patents organisation, it took control of international patents. When it joins an international airspace management organisation, it will take over competence in airspace matters. That is the purpose of the European Union's single sky programme.
§ Mr. RaynsfordThe hon. Gentleman confirms my fear that we would hear more of his fanciful views on the European Union's aspirations completely to take over and transform the nature of organisations. That is not the agenda. There is a straightforward proposal for the European Union to become a member of Eurocontrol. We are more than happy to discuss and consider that, and we believe that there is a general support for it. The fanciful suggestion that that will involve the total transformation of Eurocontrol's framework and of the role of individual member states is one that is lodged solely in the hon. Gentleman's wilder fantasies.
We are committed believers in Eurocontrol, but it is not beyond improvement. Indeed, the problems that we face in Europe today suggest strongly that that is the case. We are keen to see the organisation's regulatory role made quite separate from its service provision arm. Therefore, in the coming year, we shall also be working hard to secure change.
In Committee, the hon. Member for North Essex suggested that our aims were somehow at variance with Community law and Community policy, both current and prospective. The UK is a member of the European Community and bound by its treaties, legislation and case law. The Secretary of State inevitably will be bound to exercise the functions and other powers highlighted by the amendments and the new clause—and any other powers in the Bill—so as not to be inconsistent with Community law. We are satisfied that our proposals are not inconsistent with those obligations and that law.
§ Mr. William Cash (Stone)Would the Minister explain why the new clause refers to duty rather than function?
§ Mr. RaynsfordIs the hon. Gentleman referring to our new clause 5, or the new clause tabled by the Opposition?
§ Mr. RaynsfordI am aware of what it says.
§ Mr. RaynsfordI do not share the hon. Gentleman's European fantasies. The new clause states:
A person must comply with an order under the section notwithstanding any other duty, however arising.That provision is extremely important, and is necessary to ensure that, in times of emergency, the Government can act.The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it would be difficult if another party were to prevent the Secretary of State from taking control of assets, such as an aerodrome or aircraft, by threatening legal action under whatever pretext. He will undoubtedly see a European dimension, but this is drafted for far wider purposes—to ensure that there is the power for the Secretary of State to act in these specific circumstances without the risk of legal challenge.
§ Mr. CashI asked the Minister a simple question. Why does the word duty appear, and not function? In addition, has he read the title on the provisions on a common foreign and security policy in the Amsterdam treaty, which his Government brought into effect?
§ Mr. RaynsfordI feared that we would get into this kind of detailed textual analysis. The explanation that I gave was full and straightforward. We are creating a power to enable the Secretary of State to act effectively in national emergencies without the risk of challenge. That is the purpose of the proposal. There is no hidden European subtext.
§ Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)Where did the concept of a great national emergency come from? Has that been defined in previous legislation?
§ Mr. RaynsfordIt appears in clause 81 of this Bill. New clause 5 is designed to mirror clause 81, which gave the power to issue directions. New clause 5 gives the power to act directly to take control of assets. That is important for the reasons that I outlined, and the wording of the two clauses is totally analogous and refers to the same circumstances.
§ Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green)When the Minister says that there will be no legal challenge, does he believe that anyone who presumed that the Government's actions were beyond the scope of the requirements in the European treaties would therefore be unable to take legal action?
§ Mr. RaynsfordThis proposal is drafted with a view to protecting the national interest in a situation of emergency where it is necessary for the Government to act. That proposal was inserted to give the Secretary of State the power to act without the risk of such a challenge. There is always the possibility that someone will seek to challenge such an action, but in any case brought before 734 the courts, it will be clear that there is a power giving the Secretary of State the ability to intervene in this way. The obligation is a clear way of saying that. That is the purpose behind the proposal.
§ Mr. Duncan SmithI believe that the Minister is leaving a caveat to what he said earlier and saying that if such a challenge takes place, the higher duty is to European law and overrides the Bill.
§ Mr. RaynsfordI suspected that the hon. Gentleman was going in that direction. I remind him of what I said earlier. The Government are clearly bound by our international treaty obligations and we must act in compliance with European law. The provisions are compatible with that, for reasons that I will explain in a moment. The fantasy conjured up by the hon. Member for North Essex in Committee, whereby the Government are unable to protect the national interest because European law takes precedence is no more than that: a fantasy.
We are a member of the European Community and will respect its legislation and case law. We are satisfied that the measures that we are taking are consistent with our obligations. Conservative Members believe that developments in Europe will inevitably lead, with or without the consent of the United Kingdom, to a situation in which our policies and practices on all matters affecting the use of airspace and the provision of air traffic services will be dictated from Brussels.
We spent a lot of time in Committee on textual analysis of the treaty of Rome, its amendments and cases taken under it dealing with Community competence in matters of national security. As I made clear then, we are satisfied that our ability under the treaty to take measures to protect national security is not impaired by the case law cited by the hon. Member for North Essex as evidence of an imminent erosion of sovereignty. The case was not proved in Committee and we provided decisive rebuttals.
It is a fact that national and international law develops over time, and I submit that to behave like Canute is not the best means of ensuring that our view on the way forward for air traffic services influences the approach taken by the Community and by Europe generally.
I make no apology for playing a full part in the current discussions on how all European Governments can best act together to meet the challenges presented by ever more crowded airspace and a plethora of service providers. The current situation cannot be sustained indefinitely and those with the most forward-looking approach to both airspace management and service provision will be those whose future is best protected. That is very much one of the guiding principles behind the PPP, and I reject wholeheartedly the case for new clause 27 and its attendant amendments.
§ Mr. DalyellWhen are the current discussions, which are very important, likely to reach a conclusion? There is considerable interest in the matter.
§ Mr. RaynsfordI cannot give my hon. Friend a date, because it is not known generally when the discussions will reach a conclusion. They are continuing and I suspect that they will continue for the rest of the year. I undertake 735 to write to him to give him further news of when progress is likely to be made on some of these rather important issues.
I urge the House to support new clause 5 and its attendant amendments.
§ Mr. Duncan SmithThe Minister, who dealt with these matters in Committee, may wonder why I am standing at the Dispatch Box. It is not because I favour him and therefore want to give him some light relief from my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—I know that he will have withdrawal symptoms as a result of my hon. Friend's absence—but because, having read what took place in Committee, I took the view that the matter was serious enough to merit the attendance of a spokesman on defence matters. I consider national security to be of overarching importance and I think that serious questions relating to defence remain following the exchanges in Committee, which is why I am here, with due deference to my hon. Friend.
In addressing the amendment and other similar amendments that apply to other parts of the Bill, I wish to establish whether clauses 38 and 81, and particularly new clause 5, will address the concerns about the control of our airspace, and thus important issues of national security. I shall return to some of the issues directly arising from the clauses, but I shall begin by trying to establish why the matter is peculiarly important given the nature of the Bill.
It is important to state from the outset that my main concern is not particularly the critical time of war or even the run to war which may be well established, with the security environment setting the tone of the Government's behaviour. It has more to do with the security issues that arise as a result of military training and operation in and around our existing airspace. In an earlier debate, the Secretary of State referred to a document that has just been published. I have not seen it because it is not in the Library. As the right hon. Gentleman referred to it, I should be grateful if he let us see its contents.
On 10 February, in Standing Committee, the Secretary of State referred to schedule 8 in respect of the unique relationship between our defence air traffic controllers and the civil controllers at NATS. That relationship is quite different from that in any other country. We run our airspace in a way that is very efficient compared with America or France which have corridors dedicated to their military airspace and separate their military controllers from the civil controllers, with all the difficulties that that entails. As the RAF do not have corridors and their controllers work cheek by jowl with their civil counterparts, they make efficient use of the airspace. Their unique relationship is both efficient and ensures greater safety within the running of the service, so it has a peculiar extra dimension.
That close relationship relies on a significant amount of trust—an awful lot is not written down, but has always operated in a certain way and works well. For example, if the RAF says that it needs certain airspace, or if for reasons of national security it wishes to block out sections of airspace for a particular time, it is agreed very quickly with NATS, with hardly any interrogation and the RAF gets the airspace that it requires without much quibbling.
My concern is that any private company that takes over the running of NATS will have a different relationship with the RAF. The relationship will, by necessity, change.
736 The new company may be under foreign ownership. It is clear from what my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex said earlier that that is certainly a possibility. In any case it will be affected by who owns it, regardless of whether it is a foreign company or a British one. The private company will come under increasing pressure to use the available airspace for commercial purposes. It follows, therefore, that it is unlikely that the relationship with the RAF will remain the same as at times, the RAF requirements will conflict with the commercial usage of that airspace.
Our amendments to clauses 38 and 81 and new clause 5 arise from the fact that the Government will be under increasing pressure to invoke the powers granted to them under those provisions more often than they anticipate. No doubt that is why the Government drafted them. Our amendment goes to the heart of the issue: how effective such clauses are likely to be and whether they address the relevant circumstances.
The first aspect that needs to be investigated is whether the clauses really do run foul of the interpretation of existing European law and whether the Government will find it difficult to invoke them successfully over the next few years.
Unless an amendment such as that tabled by my hon. Friends is accepted by the Government—or even addressed—they will open themselves to a progressive series of challenges in the commercial domain from companies that disagree with the application of the clauses. I do not believe that the term "national security" will hold any particular power over the controlling company—it will still challenge where it believes it to be necessary.
The Minister referred to the detailed rebuttal that he gave in Committee. Therefore, it is necessary to ask why he believes that he successfully rebutted the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex. These concerns in particular were raised in Committee. The Government rested their position, and their objection to our concerns about the functioning of the Bill under European law on their belief that, as the Minister said, national security is protected under European law. The Minister referred to a judgment made on 26 October 1999 by the European Court of Justice in the case of Angela Maria Sirdar and the Army Board, Secretary of State for Defence. I do not want to go into details; I know that the hon. Gentleman has been round this fence a few times. However, when he partially referred to paragraph 17 of that judgment, he did himself a disservice. He said that the concept of public security covers both a member state's internal security and its external security. On that, he rested the view that that judgment had made it clear that national security was enough to block off any further challenges through the European Court of Justice. I believe that he was fundamentally wrong.
It was in that particular case that the European Court of Justice made a clear statement, for the first time, that it had a right to rule on issues of national security. It prepared itself the position to say that simply saying national security is no longer good enough.
The Minister failed to show in Committee that the court no longer considers that any member nation has a general treaty exception for reasons of public security. In paragraph 16 of the judgment, the court said:
To recognise the existence of such an exception, regardless of the specific requirements laid down by the Treaty, might impair the binding nature of Community law and its uniform application …737 Furthermore, exceptions on the nature of public security are based in this case on derogations of four particular articles. The court has taken a progressively narrow view, over the years, on the way in which derogations should apply, especially if they run counter to the ethos of the market place or the single market.It is interesting that the Minister should use that case to show that the court did not take a decision against the British Government because of the derogation. In fact, the court made it clear that it considered that it had a full right to revisit these exemptions as and when it saw fit. That is borne out by a judgment on 11 January 2000 in the case of Tanja Kreil and the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. There, the court ruled against the German Government, who had defended a position that they were taking in front of the court for reasons of national security. On this, the court was quite clear. It said:
the question is therefore whether, in the circumstances of the present case, the measures taken by the national authorities, in the exercise of the discretion which they are recognised to enjoy, do in fact have the purpose of guaranteeing public security and whether they are appropriate and necessary to achieve that aim.Furthermore, the court moved on the issue of derogations by showing that it would allow the use of derogation in this field only if that provision was interpreted strictly.Thus, in a matter of weeks, the European Court of Justice first established the right to rule on concepts of national security and then went on to use the same basis subsequently to reject the German Government's position. The British Government, in the form of the Minister, used the Sirdar case, so I think it fair to continue down that road and use the next case up.
I deliberately referred to these two cases, because the Minister, in his justification for the Government's position that the new clause, and the clauses already in the Bill, will succeed, prayed in aid the Sirdar case.
§ Mr. CashMy hon. Friend makes an honourable case. Given the uncertainties, the vagueness, conflicts and contradictions that are contained under the case law to which he has referred and the enormous number of variations that can occur, could anyone imagine any consistent policy emerging under new clause 5? That provision would apply
in any time of actual or imminent hostilities or of severe international tension or of great national emergency.One would have to go through a quagmire of legalised contradiction. Would not British national interests and national security be severely prejudiced as a result?
§ 9 pm
§ Mr. Duncan SmithIf my hon. Friend will bear with me, we shall deal with that argument later on. I agree with him, but I shall cover the point more powerfully in another part of my speech.
In Committee, the Minister prayed in aid the Sirdar case for the success of his provisions. I was concerned by another of his comments. Perhaps under advice from an official—although not, I hope, one who had studied European law—the Minister quoted article 297 of the treaty as the defining moment showing that our concerns and worries were wrong.
738 The Minister said that the exercise of powers under clause 81 would be entirely consistent with the treaty—in other words, that national security and thus the exercise of derogations, and so on, were sacrosanct in the eyes of the Court. However, I have taken advice on the matter and article 297 means the opposite of that. It is important to re-read the article. It is about how a clash with the ECJ and the acquis communautaire would be remedied. The article states:
Member states shall consult each other with a view to taking together the steps needed to prevent the functioning of the common market being affected by measures which a Member State may be called upon to take in the event of serious internal disturbances affecting the maintenance of law and order, in the event of war, serious international tension constituting a threat of war, or in order to carry out obligations it has accepted for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security.In effect, it states that one cannot act without consulting all parties within the EU—including the Commission—and adjusting one's actions accordingly.if the Minister had read on, he would have seen that article 298 kills his argument completely. Article 298 makes it clear that, if the Commission takes the view that the Government have acted in a way that distorts the marketplace, it can take the Government to the ECJ on an accelerated proposal.
The treaty takes a view about a member state making what the treaty determines and the Court then decides is improper use of legislation. The Minister's firm ground in Committee is now very shaky indeed. If the Government felt it necessary to use these provisions to protect national security, there are serious doubts that they would succeed, and that they would not have an injunction placed on them. They need to face up to that problem.
The Government must also face up to some other difficulties presented by their provisions. Their stance is not absolute. There is a progressive process that is likely to give a private company the reason and opportunity to challenge the Government's interpretation of national security—not in great moments of crisis and conflict but, when there is a military requirement for airspace, they may find themselves in some difficulty.
Let us move on to other aspects of the clauses. What will happen if, for example, the Government have security concerns about an employee or employees of the future privatised company? Those concerns might not necessarily arise during a conflict, but in a normal working year when the Government do not have a specific conflict in mind. Clause 38 does not deal with that point even though it should. The Government may decide that certain people pose a security risk to the running of the company, particularly given its relationship with military controllers, but the clause gives them or the company no powers to insist that those people are not employed for security reasons.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex referred to the security difficulties of the Kosovo operation. I cite a more obvious example. The French take a different view on the use of our military in Iraq and there may be differences that could lead the Government to decide that a person employed may cause a security breach or lapse as a result of his close connection with the military on the control of airspace. The Government should have addressed that problem in clause 38, but they 739 have not done so. I urge them to think carefully about it and, if necessary, to table further amendments. At present, the clause is flawed.
Even if the Government want to use another device to stop someone being employed, they will face difficulties. The European security and defence identity process will mean that anyone from the Commission to the European Court will take the view that, because we are in a common defence position, it is difficult to say that a security risk arises in relation to any other member of the European Union. Because the Government have not addressed the problem in clause 38, they have no hook on which to hang that objection. That will create a huge problem for them in the future.
Why does clause 38 not refer to compensation if the Government intend to use the devices available to them? What will happen if there is no compensation provision? Clause 81 and new clause 5 contain such a provision, but if a private company is aggrieved by the provisions employed in clause 38, it will want to take redress in legal processes.
§ Mr. RaynsfordIt might help if I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has misread clause 38, which is about giving directions. He will surely understand from what I said earlier that there is a distinction between new clause 5, which allows for powers to seize assets and where compensation is clearly appropriate, and the provisions that give directions to the licence holder to act in a certain way. He must recognise that, if there is a fear about the security rating of an individual, that matter can be well covered by the provisions in clause 38(2).
§ Mr. Duncan SmithI hear what the Minister says. On compensation, the directions to which he referred could, and are likely to, lead to claims for compensation because the directions might result in changes of operation. As a result of that, the company might claim that there is problem. The Minister dismisses all the arguments as though the Government have arrived with a tablet of stone that cannot be changed. I simply point to a problem.
I do not think that the Minister's other point about whether it is possible to dismiss someone is covered by the clause. He should take serious legal advice, because a company is bound to challenge the provisions.
Under the combinations of events that I have described, a private company is more likely to make a challenge over the issue of national security. The vagueness of some of the wording will, I suspect, lead to further challenges to the Government in the European Court. Clause 81(2)(e) says that the Government may give directions to
a person who owns or operates a relevant asset.That phrase is so vague that any decision made under the clause in that respect will almost automatically be challenged.I return to paragraph 26 of the Sirdar judgment that the Government were so keen to pray in aid in Committee. When the issue of national security is invoked, the court states:
That principle requires that derogations remain within the limits of what is appropriate and necessary.I have genuine and serious concerns about the Government's overall position on national security. This is not an argument for or against privatisation. However, 740 by the Bill, the Government have opened the door to an issue that was not necessarily questioned previously. It is not enough for the Government, without any serious comment or explanation about our relationship with the European Union, to say that they rest on their own strange belief that all will be well because everyone will trust the Government's judgment.I sat on the Government Benches when the Conservative Government were in office. I remember Conservative Ministers often saying exactly the same thing. There was almost deja vu when I read some of the Minister's comments in Committee and set them against those made by some of his predecessors within the Conservative party when they were in government. In so many cases they found themselves eating their words two, three or four years later. In each instance they said that they could not have anticipated that the court would move in a particular direction. The Minister should take note of that. Unless he finds his own words an excellent diet, he should be prepared to find himself in deep difficulties in a few years' time.
There is a unique relationship that I would wish to see replicated if a private company is to take over the running of our airspace. That is unlikely as long as the Government fail to accept our amendments or fail to recognise that there is an issue which poses the question, "Who controls our airspace?" That is the key. Throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee the Government failed to answer that question. If they do not do so tonight, the issue of national security remains live and may yet pose huge problems for the implementation of the Bill when it is enacted. When the Government need the legislation, it will not be there. I am deeply concerned.
§ Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Cunninghame, South)I shall speak to amendment No. 147, which stands in my name. I shall be brief in asking my hon. Friend the Minister two specific questions.
First, the Government have introduced a provision that suggests that ownership can be taken down to 25 per cent. If what I have learned in the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs is anything to go by, a foreign company is almost certain to be the successful bidder. I am concerned about national security. The Government talked originally about a public-private partnership, and I want to know why the Government would accept a 25 per cent. shareholding. Surely this must have a major effect on national security. I want to have some assurances that that is not the position.
During the discussions of the Select Committee, one of the most interesting episodes was a meeting with the senior management of National Air Traffic Services. We talked about expansion and they said that our technology was potentially at the leading edge. They added that that would lead to the possibility of us participating in foreign air traffic control. I believe that there could be problems if the Government were to have any shareholding in air traffic control.
Let us say that the Government maintain their 49 or 46 per cent. holding, a private company is taking control and it decides that it will invest in, for example, Russian air traffic control. There is always the potential for a problem in that airspace. Were there to be a major incident with two airliners crashing, what would be the political and diplomatic implications of such an 741 investment? In those circumstances, the British Government could be under an A-bomb if there were such an incident in foreign climes. I did not receive a reasonable response on that until the directors of NATS told me that they could not foresee NATS making foreign investments while it had even a single share in publicly owned companies in this country.
9.15 pm
Is that the case? Have we been debating the inevitability of privatisation and are we moving down the road to full-scale privatisation? The technology that we have been told will come on stream at Swanwick and, I assume, Prestwick, could not be used abroad under the auspices of shareholdings still maintained by the public sector and the Government. I would be obliged if my hon. Friend the Minister would reply to that in his summing up.
§ Mr. CashWe are debating a transport Bill, but at the heart of this evening's debate is new clause 5, which deals with the defence of the United Kingdom.
Let us imagine going back to, say, 9 May 1940. Tomorrow happens to be my birthday, and it is also the anniversary of the day that Churchill became Prime Minister and, unfortunately, the day on which the Germans invaded the Lowlands. The RAF obtained its first Victoria Cross when Maastricht was invaded on 10 May 1940. [Interruption.] If the Minister would be good enough to listen to my speech for a couple of minutes, which he is obviously incapable of doing—
§ Mr. RaynsfordThe hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for a long time, so he will know that it is perfectly possible for Ministers to pay attention to the debate and, at the same time, have brief discussions with Whips on matters relating to complex procedures such as those being followed tonight. I hope that he will be less offensive in future.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would return to the subject that we are debating.
§ Mr. Raynsfordindicated dissent.
§ Mr. CashObviously he was not listening, as it seems that he has not the faintest idea of what I was talking about. I have therefore made my point.
The new clause concerns the inherent contradictions between the defence of the realm and the Bill's provisions. The Minister referred to our obligations. Subsection (4) of the new clause, which I mentioned earlier, refers to the duty imposed by the Secretary of State. However, if the Minister refers to the European Communities Act 1972, he will see that section 2 clearly states: 742
in the exercise of any statutory power or duty, including any power to give directions, or to legislate by means of orders—to which new clause 5 relates—rules, regulations or other subordinate instrument, the person entrusted—meaning the Minister himself, if only he would listen—with the power or duty may have regard to the objects of the Communities and to any such obligation or rights as aforesaid.I heard the Minister say that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench were living in a fantasy world. However, the provisions that he will introduce in the new clause are mirrored in the provisions of section 2 of the 1972 Act.
The fact is that there is no absolute requirement with respect to duties, but there is a reference to powers. That is why, in an intervention, I asked the Minister, who obviously could not answer, why the Government chose to refer to duties rather than functions. The Minister may not understand the provisions that he is introducing, but the fact is that the word "duty" is carefully chosen, because the word "functions" would include "powers". With that, we enter the arena of the provisions of title V of the Amsterdam treaty. The Minister can shake his head, but he cannot avoid the reality that everything I am saying will happen in due course.
I do not need to go into the details, because they are as clear as daylight. The interaction between the provisions of the Amsterdam treaty, of clauses 38 and 81 and of new clause 5 will reveal that they are inherently contradictory. There is no possibility that anyone will be able, in the defence of the realm, to know exactly what is going on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said, there is no way, in the event of imminent hostilities or a great national emergency, that anyone will have the opportunity to plough through all the case law and the requirements that have been laid down.
The Minister did not listen when I spoke about incidents that occurred 60 years ago, almost to the day. In those days, we were able to send Spitfires and Hurricanes to defeat an enemy. If new clause 5 is to have any credibility, it must be able to deal with situations of the sort that I described—if it cannot, why bother to introduce it? If there is no reason for concern about national security or the defence of the realm, there is no need to bother with new clause 5—it is irrelevant.
The fact that the Government have introduced the new clause, albeit at the end of our proceedings on the Bill, is an admission that the defence of the realm does matter. It follows that all the provisions must be workable. The Minister shakes his head and in so doing tells the House and the nation that he is not perturbed in the slightest by the fact that there might be contradictions between various provisions of the Bill. However, I believe that the time will come when those deficiencies and contradictions emerge. If they do not become obvious, it will only be owing to the Minister's good luck.
The bottom line is that there are huge contradictions. It would take far more time than is available to me tonight to go through them all. I only hope that the Minister and his advisers are prepared to look again at the provisions to establish whether or not they are right. The question of whether I am right or they are right is secondary to that of the national interest. We are dealing with defence of the realm. The Bill's many other important provisions relating to transport will pale into insignificance if the clauses that we are dealing with now go wrong.
743 The Government's new clause states:
This section applies in any time of actual or imminent hostilities or of severe international tension or of great national emergency.It is impossible that the need for such a provision was not anticipated when the Bill was first drafted. Why, then, is it being introduced at the tail end of proceedings, by way of a Government new clause? I should like to add, on a conciliatory note—
§ Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)Do not get carried away.
§ Mr. CashI shall not. While I do not want to be offensive, I want to be direct. That the Minister is not a Defence Minister is not his fault, but I have to tell him that, if the new clause was drafted in consultation with the Ministry of Defence, he has not done the job properly.
if the Minister looked—it would take far too long to go through it—at the research paper published by the House of Commons Library international affairs and defence section on 21 February this year, "European Defence: From Pörtschach to Helsinki", he would note that there is now a new EU military structure. That structure clearly identifies the roles of the commander-in-chief and the extent to which—this might come as a surprise to the Minister, who is not in the MOD—it is anticipated that our potential adversaries have weapons of mass destruction.
Therefore, under the confines of title V of the Amsterdam treaty, which was passed by this Government, there is a defence dimension. [Interruption.] If the Minister thinks that that is funny, the matter will haunt him if and when things go wrong. I am amazed by the Minister's reaction to the proposal because his new clause does not stand up. Has he consulted the MOD?
§ Mr. RaynsfordYes.
§ Mr. CashHas the Minister read or understood title V of the Amsterdam treaty? Can he reconcile the provisions of new clause 5, and clauses 81 and 38 to the extent that the people of this country will be satisfied that, if the lights go out, they will be properly defended and not simply left at risk as a result of this confused, vague, contradictory Bill?
§ Mr. WilkinsonI am most grateful—I think that the whole House will have been—to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) for taking part in the debate on new clauses 5 and 27 and relevant amendments that deal with national security. I will not follow all the detailed arguments that he adumbrated, but I stress that the Government have done well, even at this late stage, to introduce, under new clause 5, powers of requisition in time of national emergency or war of aerodromes, aircraft and relevant equipment. That is entirely appropriate but insufficient without the provisions of new clause 27.
The acquis communautaire is viewed as something in the past and static, but we are legislating for many years to come. The acquis communautaire is always growing; to my knowledge, there are no examples of it receding. The competence of the European Union in matters relating to civil air transport and aviation are clearly growing. The evidence is plain. Let us consider recent examples.
744 There is the question of bilateral air service agreements. Previously, they were always a matter entirely of national competence—and rightly so. Let us consider questions of capacity on routes, frequencies of service and gateways to or from which those services are operated. Let us consider the matter of slots. The issue of frequency of operation at airports and the facility for airlines to operate from an airport at certain intervals have been jealously guarded, and in this country normally regulated by voluntary mechanisms at individual airports. The European Commission now wishes to take that over, and that has great significance.
My hon. Friend the shadow spokesman and, obliquely, the Minister, spoke about the EU' s ambition to take over Eurocontrol. Eurocontrol would in essence become an agency of the European Union, rather than, as hitherto, a mechanism for mutual co-operation between sovereign, independent nation states in the whole of Europe, to facilitate the efficient management of air transport through the crowded and congested airspace of our continent.
9.30 pm
There is a huge difference between the new concept and the system that we operated in the past, which, despite differences of specification and equipment between nations, the requirements of the military and so on, has worked reasonably well. There has always been a need for improvement. At holiday times, the congestion on the airways can be severe, and Eurocontrol has much work to do, but it should be done in co-operation with national Governments, voluntarily. The issue is technical, rather than political.
Then there is the matter of joint airworthiness requirements. Aircraft are now built to European standards of certification, and aircraft imported into our continent are validated to European standards—joint airworthiness requirements.
Flight crew licensing is a controversial issue, on which we have had debates. The European Civil Aviation Conference has imposed new continentwide regulations which it is eager to impose on flight crew in this country. Those are costly and less effective than the simpler and more straightforward regulations under which air crew have been licensed in the past in the UK.
It is clear from all that that the European Union has hegemonistic aspirations in airspace management. To imagine otherwise is to be blind to the way in which the EU has developed in recent years. The Government would therefore be wise willingly to incorporate new clause 27 into the Bill.
Under clause 81(4)(a), the Secretary of State would have powers to give directions
to regulate or prohibit (absolutely or subject to conditions) the navigation of all or any descriptions of aircraft over the United Kingdom.If that were challenged by the European Union, as it probably would be, it could cause our Government great difficulty unless we made it plain that British law had precedence over European law in this matter.
§ Mr. Duncan SmithMy hon. Friend makes a good point, which I had hoped to raise with the Minister, and I shall do so now. If the measure were challenged under article 298 of the European Union consolidated treaties, 745 it would not be a defence for the Government to invoke the concept of national security and claim that they are unable to define the requirement exactly because of national security, as article 298 states:
The Court of Justice shall give its ruling in camera.That means that the court will require detail of the reason, which the MOD may not wish to give.
§ Mr. WilkinsonI am grateful to my hon. Friend, who puts flesh on the bones of my argument.
Under subsection (4)(b), the Secretary of State would also have powers to give directions
to regulate or prohibit (absolutely or subject to conditions) the use, building, maintenance or establishment of aerodromes or flying schools or of any description of aerodrome or flying school.Those are commercial or industrial matters, and again the European Union could understandably claim that its industrial policy should have precedence over our national considerations of sovereignty and independence.I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to think again. We are not being fanciful. We are not having flights of wild imagination. We are not carried away with Europhobia or anything of the kind. Our arguments are intensely realistic. The Minister is a reasonable man, who has a great grasp of detail. I hope that he appreciates that our arguments have force, and that he will accept them.
§ Mr. RaynsfordWe have had an interesting debate, punctuated by Opposition Members' anxieties about the imagined impact of European Union obligations on national security. Perhaps it would help if I summarised the basic thinking behind the amendment. We have not tabled the new clause at such a late stage simply because of an oversight; we believed that it was necessary to add a further provision in addition to clauses 38 and 81.
As I explained earlier, we believed that it was appropriate to grant the Government direct powers of intervention rather than depending on directions, for which clause 38 provides. I hope that we have made a convincing case for the importance of quick action by Government in times of national emergency. New clause 5 would facilitate that.
§ Mr. JenkinI want to pursue a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made. New clause 5(4) states:
A person must comply with an order under this section notwithstanding any other duty, however arising.What other duties does the Minister envisage?
§ Mr. RaynsfordThe new clause is clear. It states "notwithstanding any other duty". That is a clear and firm statement of intent. As I explained earlier in response to the interventions of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), we believe that the Secretary of State should be able to act without fear of challenge from a party that would try to use the courts to frustrate the Government's action. The Bill includes provisions to enable the Secretary of State to act decisively and to make it clear that no other duties will override that for which the Bill provides.
§ Mr. JenkinLet us suppose that our fantasies are realised and a duty to comply with a contractual 746 obligation arose under European legislation. Would that duty be set aside under new clause 5? Does the new clause apply to any duty under European Community law?
§ Mr. RaynsfordI shall have to repeat my response. I am sorry if it is becoming tedious for my hon. Friends, but it is clear that Conservative Members are finding the point difficult to grasp. We are satisfied that our measures are entirely compatible with our treaty obligations. We do not accept Conservative Members' analysis—or fantasy—about a perceived or real conflict between European treaty obligations and the Bill. I shall consider that point in detail later.
§ Mr. CashIf the Minister would be kind enough to consider title V of the Amsterdam treaty, perhaps he would concede that it provides that we "shall" comply with a range of provisions, but that in the case of a common action plan, we "may" have to comply with specific provisions, subject to qualified majority voting. We are considering not only duties but powers. I therefore asked the Minister why the new clause did not refer to "functions", which include powers and duties, instead of merely to duties.
§ Mr. RaynsfordIn the nicest possible way, I tell the hon. Gentleman, who is becoming a little tedious, that the Bill is drafted with a view to achieving clarity rather than indulging the fantasies of hon. Members who spend their time immersed in textual analysis of obscure European provisions.
To come to the point, we have introduced the provisions to ensure that the protection of the national interest and national security is unequivocal. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) asked whether the change of ownership could prejudice joint civil and military operations. He mentioned the Joint Air Navigation Services Council document, to which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister referred. I shall pass him a copy, but I assure him that it makes it clear that that body believes that the new arrangement will
preserve the successful civil/military relationship that currently exists between NATS and the MOD and ensure that air traffic services are sustained on a joint and integrated basis, post PPP.The MOD has been closely involved in the preparation of the provisions and is fully content that under the PPP its joint working arrangements with NATS will be maintained effectively and that national security will not be compromised.I make it clear that the choice of strategic partner will depend on several factors, one of which will be the ability to demonstrate an appropriate security culture. Under the terms of the licence, we shall be able to prevent unacceptable changes in the control of NATS on national security grounds.
The hon. Gentleman asked who would control our airspace. I make it absolutely clear that UK airspace remains under UK control regardless of who is the strategic partner. Air traffic services will be provided under a licence, which may be revoked, or the special administration regime may be triggered if the licence conditions or the statutory duties, including safety duties, are breached.
The other main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks relate to the competence of the European Commission and the European Union. The Commission has seen the Bill's 747 text and has not suggested that there is any conflict between any of its provisions and the requirements of the treaty. Of course, I do not expect Conservative Members to accept that.
§ Mr. Duncan Smithrose—
§ Mr. RaynsfordI will give way in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman restrains himself. Conservative Members demonise the Commission, so the idea that it can have had a sensible and intelligent discussion with us about the provisions is completely alien to their nature, but if they return from fantasy land to the real world, they will realise that that is the reality.
§ Mr. Duncan SmithThe hon. Gentleman says that we demonise the Commission, but if I were part of the Commission, I would have exactly that opinion. It falls in with our argument—the Commission is content because the provision lays the Government open to the future policies that we have discussed.
I ask the Minister a simple question. He mentioned the action that the Government may take under new clause 5, or under clauses 38 or 81, but especially under new clause 5(4), which includes the words:
notwithstanding any other duty, however arising.He said that in the clear belief that no other duty will matter, because the derogation on national security is absolute, but he should remind himself that the derogation exists for only four articles of the treaty of Rome. There is no derogation on any other article. Beyond those four, the Government will face a clash of duty, and the duty will be to European law.
§ Mr. RaynsfordDespite the hon. Gentleman's continued attempt to muddy the waters by suggesting that the EU will have competence in matters beyond those in which it already has competence, it cannot rule on matters that are outside its treaty competence, and a court cannot provide competences that do not exist. The treaty does not confer competence with regard to national security and defence. We have exhausted that issue, and I shall not spend much of my time fruitlessly reading documents that the Conservative party has consistently misinterpreted year on year—a fact that explains its curious position on Europe.
§ Mr. JenkinWould it be legal to invoke the golden share on grounds of national security?
§ Mr. RaynsfordThe golden share is there to preserve a number of national interests, and can be used in respect of national security issues as well as other matters. We have dealt with the issue of the power of the golden share, and that of the potential suspected European challenge to the golden share, which Opposition Members raised in Committee, and we are satisfied that the golden share is compatible with our European treaty obligations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) asked about the implications of Government shareholding for the future expansion of NATS overseas. I assure him that NATS will engage in future activities abroad as a private company, and that the Government's shareholding will not play a role.
748 The Government will not be involved in any direct contractual relationship with overseas Governments. As I have said, we expect NATS—as a public-private partnership with a solid share structure—to be able to thrive in overseas markets, subject to the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate.
§ Mr. DonohoeCan the Minister answer a simple question? Why was an amendment tabled in Committee to reduce the Government's shareholding to 25 per cent?
§ Mr. RaynsfordAs I explained in some detail then, the provision is intended to deal with a dilution of the share capital. That might happen for a number of reasons. It might be considered appropriate to raise additional finance, or it might be considered appropriate to enter into joint ventures with other parties. In such circumstances, it might seem right to dilute the share capital, and to allow the Government's shareholding to fall to, but not below, 25 per cent. That in no way compromises all the powers and safeguards that are in place, to which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister referred earlier. The golden share remains, the partnership shareholders retain their role and their power, the shareholders' agreement with the strategic partner remains in force, and all the existing safeguards will continue irrespective of that possibility. It is simply a provision to allow for a possible commercial eventuality, which should not be seen as a cause for concern.
The hon. Member for Stone described the Bill in terms that reminded me of himself. He spoke of a confused, vague, contradictory and repetitive Bill, and I do not think that he added much to the debate. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke of the hegemonistic aspirations of the European Union. That merely reinforced my fear that the Opposition were being driven by a particular view of Europe that was clouding their judgment.
These are sensible, practical provisions, which will enable us to look after the interests of national security in a practical, common-sense way. They are far removed from the Opposition's motivation, which is clearly conditioned by their negative view of Europe. We would prefer to be engaged positively with Europe in building a better future for air traffic control systems in this country and throughout Europe.
§ Mr. JenkinThe position can be summarised in this way: the Government are in complete denial about the fact that national security issues are justiciable by the European Court, and that the derogations allowed to member states that wish to act on grounds of national security are very limited.
Let me ask the Minister, for example, whether the golden share could be invoked on grounds of national security. The opinion from the Commission makes the answer absolutely clear. Article 223 of the relevant treaty—the old treaty, that is; according to the new numbering, it is article 296—allows
Member states to take measures they consider necessary for the protection of … their security which are connected with the defence sector. However, the Court of Justice pointed out that Article 223 covers only exceptional and clearly defined cases.Because of its limited character, this article does not lend itself to a wide interpretation and it is not possible to infer from it that there is inherent in the Treaty a general proviso covering all measures taken for reasons of public security.749 That absolutely lays it down. It is why the Germans lost the Kreil case. [Interruption.] It does not matter whether internal or external security is involved. That provision means that, although the Minister has obviously been advised in good faith that there is an exemption for all invocations of public security, the general blanket exemption does not exist. It is in the treaties. For example, article 36—I am looking at the old treaty again—says:The provisions of Articles 28 and 29 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security.There is the exemption, but it is prescribed thatprohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.Therefore, every invocation of public security that Ministers may make will have to be justified. What is more, it will have to be justified in terms of articles 297 and 298, which can require the European Court of Justice to require the member state to give reasons in camera in court. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence will have to go to the European Court of Justice in secret session to justify why the Government should inflict an obligation on the private company running National Air Traffic Services.It is all spelled out. If the Government cannot accept it, we will have to press our amendment to new clause 5 to a vote.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time.
§
Amendment proposed to new clause 5: (a), at end of subsection (4) insert
'including any duty arising under or by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972 (as amended).'.—[Mr. Jenkin.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 405.
753| Division No. 187] | [9.53 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) | Cormack, Sir Patrick |
| Amess, David | Cran, James |
| Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James | Davies, Quentin (Grantham) |
| Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) | Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) |
| Baldry, Tony | Day, Stephen |
| Beggs, Roy | Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen |
| Bercow, John | Duncan Smith, Iain |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Blunt, Crispin | Evans, Nigel |
| Body, Sir Richard | Faber, David |
| Boswell, Tim | Fabricant, Michael |
| Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) | Fallon, Michael |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia | Flight, Howard |
| Brady, Graham | Forth, Rt Hon Eric |
| Brazier, Julian | Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Fox, Dr Liam |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | Fraser, Christopher |
| Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) | Garnier, Edward |
| Burns, Simon | Gibb, Nick |
| Butterfill, John | Gill, Christopher |
| Cash, William | Gillan, Mrs Cheryl |
| Chope, Christopher | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Clappison, James | Gray, James |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Green, Damian |
| Greenway, John | |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Hague, Rt Hon William |
| Collins, Tim | Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie |
| Hammond, Philip | Portillo, Rt Hon Michael |
| Hawkins, Nick | Prior, David |
| Hayes, John | Randall, John |
| Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David | Redwood, Rt Hon John |
| Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas | Robathan, Andrew |
| Howard, Rt Hon Michael | Robertson, Laurence |
| Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) |
| Hunter, Andrew | Ruffley, David |
| Jack, Rt Hon Michael | St Aubyn, Nick |
| Jackson, Robert (Wantage) | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Jenkin, Bernard | Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian |
| Key, Robert | Shepherd, Richard |
| Kirkbride, Miss Julie | Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk) |
| Lait, Mrs Jacqui | Soames, Nicholas |
| Lansley, Andrew | Spelman, Mrs Caroline |
| Leigh, Edward | Spicer, Sir Michael |
| Letwin, Oliver | Spring, Richard |
| Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Lidington, David | Streeter, Gary |
| Lilley, Rt Hon Peter | Swayne, Desmond |
| Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) | Syms, Robert |
| Luff, Peter | Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton) |
| Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Taylor, Sir Teddy |
| McIntosh, Miss Anne | Townend, John |
| MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew | Tredinnick, David |
| Maclean, Rt Hon David | Trend, Michael |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Tyrie, Andrew |
| Madel, Sir David | Viggers, Peter |
| Walter, Robert | |
| Major, Rt Hon John | Waterson, Nigel |
| Malins, Humfrey | Wells, Bowen |
| Maples, John | Whitney, Sir Raymond |
| Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian | Whittingdale, John |
| May, Mrs Theresa | Wilkinson, John |
| Moss, Malcolm | Wilshire, David |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Norman, Archie | Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield) |
| O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) | Yeo, Tim |
| Ottaway, Richard | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Page, Richard | |
| Paice, James | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Paterson, Owen | Mrs. Eleanor Laing and |
| Pickles, Eric | Mr. Peter Atkinson. |
| NOES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Blackman, Liz |
| Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) | Blears, Ms Hazel |
| Ainger, Nick | Blizzard, Bob |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Blunkett, Rt Hon David |
| Alexander, Douglas | Boateng, Rt Hon Paul |
| Allan, Richard | Borrow, David |
| Allen, Graham | Bradley, Keith (Withington) |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Bradshaw, Ben |
| Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary | Brake, Tom |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Brand, Dr Peter |
| Ashton, Joe | Breed, Colin |
| Atherton, Ms Candy | Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E) |
| Atkins, Charlotte | |
| Baker, Norman | Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) |
| Ballard, Jackie | Brown, Russell (Dumfries) |
| Banks, Tony | Browne, Desmond |
| Barnes, Harry | Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) |
| Battle, John | Buck, Ms Karen |
| Bayley, Hugh | Burden, Richard |
| Beard, Nigel | Burgon, Colin |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret | Burnett, John |
| Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) | Burstow, Paul |
| Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) | Butler, Mrs Christine |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) | Byers, Rt Hon Stephen |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Cable, Dr Vincent |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Caborn, Rt Hon Richard |
| Berry, Roger | Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) |
| Best, Harold | Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) |
| Betts, Clive |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Flynn, Paul |
| Cann, Jamie | Follett, Barbara |
| Caplin, Ivor | Foster, Rt Hon Derek |
| Casale, Roger | Foster, Don (Bath) |
| Caton, Martin | Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) |
| Cawsey, Ian | Foster, Michael J (Worcester) |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Foulkes, George |
| Chaytor, David | Fyfe, Maria |
| Chidgey, David | Galbraith, Sam |
| Church, Ms Judith | Gapes, Mike |
| Clapham, Michael | Gardiner, Barry |
| Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) | George, Andrew (St Ives) |
| Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) | George, Bruce (Walsall S) |
| Gibson, Dr Ian | |
| Clark, Paul (Gillingham) | Gidley, Ms Sandra |
| Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) | Gilroy, Mrs Linda |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Godman, Dr Norman A |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) | Godsiff, Roger |
| Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) | Goggins, Paul |
| Clelland, David | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Clwyd, Ann | Gordon, Mrs Eileen |
| Coaker, Vernon | Gorrie, Donald |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) |
| Coleman, Iain | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Colman, Tony | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Connarty, Michael | Grocott, Bruce |
| Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston) | Grogan, John |
| Cooper, Yvette | Gunnell, John |
| Corbett, Robin | Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Hall, Patrick (Bedford) |
| Corston, Jean | Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) |
| Cotter, Brian | Hanson, David |
| Cousins, Jim | Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet |
| Cox, Tom | Harris, Dr Evan |
| Cranston, Ross | Harvey, Nick |
| Crausby, David | Heal, Mrs Sylvia |
| Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) | Healey, John |
| Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) |
| Cummings, John | Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) |
| Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland) | Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) |
| Hepburn, Stephen | |
| Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) | Heppell, John |
| Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire | Hesford, Stephen |
| Dalyell, Tam | Hewitt, Ms Patricia |
| Darling, Rt Hon Alistair | Hill, Keith |
| Darvill, Keith | Hinchliffe, David |
| Davey, Edward (Kingston) | Hodge, Ms Margaret |
| Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | Hoey, Kate |
| Davidson, Ian | Home Robertson, John |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Hood, Jimmy |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey |
| Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H) | Hope, Phil |
| Hopkins, Kelvin | |
| Dawson, Hilton | Howarth, Alan (Newport E) |
| Dean, Mrs Janet | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Denham, John | Howells, Dr Kim |
| Dismore, Andrew | Hoyle, Lindsay |
| Dobbin, Jim | Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Doran, Frank | Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) |
| Dowd, Jim | Humble, Mrs Joan |
| Drew, David | Hurst, Alan |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Hutton, John |
| Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) | Iddon, Dr Brian |
| Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston) | Illsley, Eric |
| Edwards, Huw | Ingram, Rt Hon Adam |
| Efford, Clive | Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) |
| Ennis, Jeff | Jamieson, David |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret | Jenkins, Brian |
| Fearn, Ronnie | Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) |
| Field, Rt Hon Frank | Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Fisher, Mark | |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark) |
| Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna | Jones, Helen (Warrington N) |
| Flint, Caroline | Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) | Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) |
| Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) | Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen) |
| Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa | Naysmith, Dr Doug |
| Keeble, Ms Sally | Norris, Dan |
| Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) | Oaten, Mark |
| Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) | O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) |
| Kemp, Fraser | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
| Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W) | O'Hara, Eddie |
| Olner, Bill | |
| Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) | O'Neill, Martin |
| Khabra, Piara S | Öpik, Lembit |
| Kidney, David | Organ, Mrs Diana |
| King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) | Osborne, Ms Sandra |
| King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) | Palmer, Dr Nick |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Pearson, Ian |
| Kumar, Dr Ashok | Pendry, Tom |
| Ladyman, Dr Stephen | Perham, Ms Linda |
| Lawrence, Mrs Jackie | Pickthall, Colin |
| Lepper, David | Pike, Peter L |
| Leslie, Christopher | Plaskitt, James |
| Levitt, Tom | Pollard, Kerry |
| Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) | Pond, Chris |
| Lewis, Terry (Worsley) | Pope, Greg |
| Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen | Pound, Stephen |
| Linton, Martin | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) |
| Livsey, Richard | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) | Prescott, Rt Hon John |
| Llwyd, Elfyn | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Lock, David | Prosser, Gwyn |
| Love, Andrew | Purchase, Ken |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce |
| McCabe, Steve | Quinn, Lawrie |
| McCafferty, Ms Chris | Radice, Rt Hon Giles |
| McDonagh, Siobhain | Raynsford, Nick |
| Macdonald, Calum | Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) |
| McDonnell, John | Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) |
| McFall, John | Rendel, David |
| McGuire, Mrs Anne | Roche, Mrs Barbara |
| McIsaac, Shona | Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff |
| McKenna, Mrs Rosemary | Rooney, Terry |
| Mackinlay, Andrew | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert | Rowlands, Ted |
| MacShane, Denis | Roy, Frank |
| Mactaggart, Fiona | Ruane, Chris |
| McWalter, Tony | Ruddock, Joan |
| McWilliam, John | Russell, Bob (Colchester) |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Ryan, Ms Joan |
| Mallaber, Judy | Salter, Martin |
| Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) | Sanders, Adrian |
| Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) | Sarwar, Mohammad |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Sawford, Phil |
| Marshall-Andrews, Robert | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Martlew, Eric | Sheerman, Barry |
| Maxton, John | Shipley, Ms Debra |
| Meacher, Rt Hon Michael | Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) |
| Merron, Gillian | Singh, Marsha |
| Michael, Rt Hon Alun | Skinner, Dennis |
| Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) | Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) | Smith, Angela (Basildon) |
| Milburn, Rt Hon Alan | Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S) |
| Miller, Andrew | Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) |
| Moffatt, Laura | Smith, John (Glamorgan) |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Moore, Michael | Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) |
| Moran, Ms Margaret | Snape, Peter |
| Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway) | Soley, Clive |
| Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) | Southworth, Ms Helen |
| Morley, Elliot | Spellar, John |
| Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) | Squire, Ms Rachel |
| Starkey, Dr Phyllis | |
| Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon) | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Stevenson, George | |
| Mountford, Kali | Stewart, David (Inverness E) |
| Mudie, George | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
| Mullin, Chris | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) | Stoate, Dr Howard |
| Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin | Tynan, Bill |
| Straw, Rt Hon Jack | Vaz, Keith |
| Stringer, Graham | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Stuart, Ms Gisela | Wareing, Robert N |
| Stunell, Andrew | Watts, David |
| Sutcliffe, Gerry | Webb, Steve |
| Swinney, John | Welsh, Andrew |
| Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Wicks, Malcolm | |
| Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) | Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd |
| Taylor, David (NW Leics) | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) |
| Taylor, Matthew (Truro) | |
| Temple-Morris, Peter | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) | Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) |
| Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) | Willis, Phil |
| Timms, Stephen | Wills, Michael |
| Tipping, Paddy | Wilson, Brian |
| Todd, Mark | Winnick, David |
| Tonge, Dr Jenny | Wood, Mike |
| Trickett, Jon | Woolas, Phil |
| Truswell, Paul | Worthington, Tony |
| Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) | Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) |
| Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) | Wyatt, Derek |
| Turner, Neil (Wigan) | |
| Twigg, Derek (Halton) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) | Mr. Tony McNulty and |
| Tyler, Paul | Mr. Don Touhig. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Clause added to the Bill.
§ MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.