Single European Sky

HC Deb 24 June 2002 vol 387 cc678-97

[Relevant documents: The Thirty-Second Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2001–02 (HC 152-xxxii), paragraph 16, on Air Traffic Management and Aviation Safety.]

7.48 pm

The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 13735/99, Commission Communication on the creation of a Single European Sky, No. 12692/1/01, Commission Communication and draft Regulation laying down the framework for the creation of a Single European Sky, and No. 12693/1/01, draft Regulations on the provision of air navigation services, organisation and use of airspace and technical interoperability in the Single European Sky; considers that the establishment of a single air traffic management (ATM) framework in the Community can best be achieved by establishing and implementing common rules which are developed and monitored centrally; considers that military authorities should not be bound by these regulations; agrees that the operation of the single market would be improved by establishing a Community body responsible for the creation of a single Community airspace with common design, planning and management, for the authorisation of air navigation service providers and certification of air traffic controllers, for ensuring an equitable and transparent charging regime for air navigation services, and for the development of technical interoperability; supports the Government's position that the model mapped out in the proposals, but excluding its military part, could provide the building blocks to meet these objectives by improving the present European ATM system, reducing air transport delays and the financial and environmental cost associated with them, the key element being that the Single Sky regulator is endowed with sufficient powers and autonomy to make efficient and effective decisions; and supports the Government's intention to press for this approach in the European Union. I welcome the opportunity to debate this important measure on the Floor of the House. The Government attach great importance to the establishment of the single European sky as it will benefit our aviation industry, the travelling public and the environment. We believe that single sky is a good project that offers the only realistic long-term solution to overcoming the difficulties in Europe's rather fragmented air traffic management system that has been coupled with an ever-increasing amount of air travel and air congestion. Single sky offers a much-needed fresh approach to smooth out the inconsistencies across Europe, to quicken the process of market liberalisation in the provision of air traffic services and to enhance airspace capacity while at the same time ensuring that air safety remains paramount. Those are the background factors.

The origins of single sky date from the heavy air traffic delays of the first half of 1999 that resulted from significant airspace closures. The June 1999 Transport Council responded by requesting the Commission to examine what was being done to minimise delays and to assess whether further initiatives were required. The Commission looked in some detail at the issue and presented to the December 1999 Transport Council its communication entitled "The Creation of the Single European Sky". The proposal subsequently cleared scrutiny in the Lords, but has yet to do so in the Commons.

Hon. Members may recall that as the development work on single sky was ongoing in the high-level group throughout 2000, it was not felt appropriate to debate single sky at that time. The United Kingdom Government participated fully in the high-level group and we enjoyed the consistent high standards of support and advice that we have come to expect from the Civil Aviation Authority. We also worked closely with National Air Traffic Services and the airlines in developing our policy on this proposal.

After the presentation of the high-level group report to the December 2000 Transport Council, there was a short hiatus while the issue of Gibraltar airport was resolved satisfactorily. Following the agreement between the respective Governments in the summer of 2001, the Commission released its two further communications on single sky last October which include four draft regulations. The proposals have not yet cleared scrutiny by either of the European Union Committees.

We recognise that single sky is a complex proposal. This is why, in conjunction with other European member states, we have sought to ensure that single sky offers significant benefits over those that we might realistically expect to arise from the work of the existing Eurocontrol organisation, even taking into account last week's decision by European member states authorising the European Community to sign the accession protocol to join Eurocontrol. The Government believe that that decision will be conducive to the success of single sky because it will help to secure the participation of Eurocontrol, with its wealth of technical expertise, in the single sky process.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes)

We are always interested to hear what the Minister has to say and this is no exception. However, although I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I do not understand the difference between Eurocontrol, which is working on giving us a smoother ride throughout Europe, and the single sky initiative. What is the difference between a single sky and the other types of sky?

Mr. Spellar

Eurocontrol deals effectively with technical matters and harmonisation of procedures and technology. The feeling, especially since 1999, is that neighbouring countries in particular need to pull together so that there is greater harmonisation of aviation control. At the moment we have a lumpy and disjointed process that delays flights. That is also partly down to the investment by different countries at different times. As the inevitable increase in capacity does not apply everywhere, we are not able to achieve the best advantages from that.

I fully understand that there are problems with the policy. We need to work through them. The involvement of the Community will enable the process to work more smoothly. We all agree that the problem exists. Equally, however, we can recognise not so much the deficiencies but the limitations of Eurocontrol. The policy allows us to have an advanced capability that we can match up with the problems.

David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde)

My right hon. Friend is right that the accession of the Community to Eurocontrol will push the process forward. Does he share the slight concern, however, that if the Community chooses to vote as one in Eurocontrol. there is a six-month cooling off period—it is not quite a power of veto—so that the non-EU members can have a good think about the agreement? Given that the problems are multiplying rapidly, does he think that that is too long?

Mr. Spellar

My hon. Friend may think that, but I should explain that it represents considerable progress. Unlike him in his previous occupation, I do not seek perfection; I merely try to ensure that things are more manageable.

The single sky proposal can be broken down into four parts: the establishment of the single sky committee; a new authorisation system for the provision of air navigation services within the Community; a mechanism to establish a single coherent Community airspace with common procedures; and a proposal to improve technical interoperability between Europe's air traffic service providers.

Mr. Steen

I have got the idea about the sky and the slots, but I am still not clear about defence. Air traffic control excludes defence aircraft. I hope the Minister excuses my ignorance, but how does that fit in with the new sky business? Will all the sky be controlled or will fighter aircraft be excluded?

Mr. Spellar

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will come to that in a moment. He is right to identify the problem, which concerns a number of member states. We have made it clear that we need to resolve that by excluding military aviation so that we can make progress on the civil side. However, we also need to ensure that we get the right working relationship between civil and military airspace, as we have successfully done in the UK, so that we avoid some of the blockages that occur in the European system.

The framework regulation sets up an over-arching approach to European air traffic management through the establishment of the Single Sky Committee. The committee will be tasked to create a European airspace conceived and managed as a single continuum by the end of 2004, and for ensuring that the action programme to deliver single sky is achieved. The work of the committee is still being refined in the negotiations that are taking place and we are pushing to ensure that it will provide genuine improvements over what can be achieved under Eurocontrol's structure. We are hopeful that the new committee will succeed in that regard.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), the Government made it clear during negotiations that they will not allow military operations to come within Community jurisdiction under the first pillar of the treaty of the European Union, a view shared by many member states. We believe that our position will be maintained, but I want to assure the House that we are not complacent. We will continue to scrutinise developments closely to ensure that the single sky proposals are not directly applicable to our military air traffic authorities and do not enable the Commission to take control of our military forces.

The proposal on air navigation services is still being developed.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)

Can the Minister assure me that the Government are also taking seriously concerns in the light aviation community? Members of the gliding community are worried that the provisions will exclude them from European airspace and destroy the sport. Will he accept representations from the British Gliding Association to explain the issue and perhaps find a way forward?

Mr. Spellar

The hon. Gentleman will know that I am always prepared to receive representations from fellow Members of Parliament, although I am not sure why the provisions on the relationship between civil and military airspace would have that impact. However, we recognise that a considerable number of people participate in gliding. Many of them are associated with the armed forces, especially the Air Cadet Force, and we would not want their interests to come into conflict. For a moment I was afraid that the hon. Gentleman might be talking about how extraterrestrials would come within air traffic control. I recall that they were part of my remit when I was Under-Secretary of State for Defence. I thank the hon. Gentleman for sparing us that diversion. On a more serious note, I await his representations on the gliding issue.

The air navigation services' proposal is still being developed, but the Government are strongly in favour of it. This is because the UK already has a robust regulatory system for air traffic services that is enshrined in the Transport Act 2000 and the air navigation order. National Air Traffic Services and its controllers are already licensed and operate under stringent safety requirements, which has led to a service of which the UK is justly proud. The Government will not allow these standards to be lowered, and we are convinced that single sky will raise rather than lower safety requirements throughout Europe.

The proposal on air navigation services is also designed to begin what is, in our view, the overdue process of liberalising the provision of these services. That is particularly the case in the non en-route activities such as airport approach control services, meteorology and aeronautical services. Both NATS and the Meterological Office are uniquely placed to benefit from this initiative and are keen to seek to capitalise on the commercial opportunities that the proposal offers for their expertise.

In the longer run, the Government hope that NATS will be able to benefit from any developments enabling far more en-route air traffic services to be operated across national boundaries within the Community. The airspace proposal respects the essential need not to compromise each member state's airspace sovereignty. Nevertheless, it stresses that Europe's airspace is a vital resource that must be efficiently managed as a whole rather than the somewhat fragmentary approach that we see today. For example, there are about 30 flight information regions throughout the Community and single sky hopes to replace these with one region in the upper airspace.

The intention is to create also functional blocks of airspace that are unconstrained by national boundaries. The Government support this notion as it would enable the formation of larger air traffic service providers—we hope that NATS will be one of these—that can benefit from the resulting economies of scale.

Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West)

My right hon. Friend used the expression "liberalise". Was that a euphemism for privatise? If so, will he explain whether the decision to create a European single sky, which I am tempted to support, is predicated upon the liberalisation of the markets or the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services? I ask the question because of the assurance of my hon. Friend's predecessor.

Mr. Spellar

My hon. Friend knows that I am prone not to euphemism but more to blunt speech. Therefore, I assure him that this is liberalisation in terms of opening up the market. It is not predicated upon the mechanism of ownership, either in the UK or in any other country. It is, however, about making the most efficient use of the assets that are available, and the most efficient use of the airspace that is available. That has nothing to do with the decisions of individual countries in terms of ownership of their facilities.

Mr. Salter

I thank my right hon. Friend for a full answer. Does he accept that those of us on the Government Benches who have grave misgivings about the part privatisation of NATS certainly have no such misgivings about the veracity of his answers nor the honesty and bluntness with which he has always dealt with us? However, l must press him again. One of the central arguments advanced in support of the reasoning behind the need to part privatise NATS was the forthcoming creation of the European single sky. My hon. Friend has correctly suggested that that decision was not predicated on that set of circumstances. Does he understand why many people are left slightly confused and bemused?

Mr. Spellar

I do not entirely accept that. The opportunity presented by the privatisation of NATS was to enable the most efficient operation and the incorporation of new investment that would constitute the leading edge of investment in air traffic services. That capability puts NATS in the best possible position to provide services on a broader framework as we are able to negotiate that within the concept of single sky. Other countries do not necessarily have to follow that route. It might be that they will therefore not be able to have the most effective organisation that is open to them. Therefore, services provided by NATS may be more attractive. We all agree that it is providing a technically proficient service, arid an increasingly cost effective one. Decisions needed to be taken in the United Kingdom. These led to the provision of more efficient services in the UK and put British air traffic control in a favourable position in the international environment. That is different from arguments that are advanced as to what should happen in other countries. We come back to the point that I was making about the meaning of "liberalise" in this context.

David Cairns

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what matters is not so much ownership but separation between those who provide the service and those who regulate it, which is not the case throughout Europe? That is where reform is needed.

Mr. Spellar

There is much in what my hon. Friend says, but we are getting one step ahead of where we need to be moving in a European context. As I have said, there are many air traffic centres throughout Europe. I believe that there are about three times as many as those in the United States, and they are handling a unified air space.

There is a danger within Europe that the argument can be caught up in ownership issues, which are causing some difficulties in some countries. We saw the results only last week. It is right that we achieve a logical separation of the different issues. We recognise the differences between the regimes that different air traffic control systems operate. Some European operators have been able to raise their charges by their own unilateral decisions. In this country, NATS has to make an application to the Civil Aviation Authority and has to he able to justify increases in charges to the airlines. I think that it is generally accepted that that is the better format for considering the long-term development of a substantial but growing industry. However, it is facing the various challenges that I have mentioned.

The Government welcome the proposal to improve technical interoperability across the Community's air traffic service providers. We see this as a natural extension of the Community directives that already exist to promote air traffic service interoperability in Europe. Moreover, we believe that less fragmented air traffic services will enhance the overall capacity of the system significantly, reduce the cost of new equipment through more effective procurement practices, and further strengthen air safety.

Detailed discussions are continuing in the Council's working group. There was also a short discussion on single sky's framework regulation at last week's Transport Council, which I attended. That agreed some common principles on single sky, and the project will now be taken forward as a package on which we expect final agreement some time next year. In the light of the continuing work on the draft single sky proposals, the Government welcome the debate.

8.8 pm

Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire)

The issue of European air traffic control has become increasingly important as a result of the ever-more crowded skies over Europe. Congestion inevitably leads to delays, increased cost burdens and inefficiencies. Last but not least, it leads to fears for safety. According to Eurocontrol's latest assessment, traffic is forecast to grow on average by 4.8 per cent. a year. That is the equivalent of an increase of 26.6 per cent. over the period to 2005. By 2015, it is predicted that there will be a 60 per cent. increase in flights. Other estimates suggest that the number of people flying will double over the next 10 or 15 years. We therefore have a real problem on our hands. Despite continuous efforts to deal with it, serious congestion prevails, particularly in the most intensively used air corridors of Europe. That congestion threatens the future of Europe's aviation market.

Current national air traffic control arrangements are indeed inefficient. To cite a popular example, Europe has 73 air traffic control centres, whereas the USA has only 20 to manage twice as many flights. The European Commission's answers to these problems are presented in the single European sky proposals that we are debating today.

At the heart of the proposals is the idea that national air traffic control arrangements should be brought under the remit of an expanded Eurocontrol. Even though operations could still be conducted by national ATCs, any such centralisation of air traffic control is contentious, because there would inevitably be some transfer of powers away from the nation state's control. That is particularly sensitive in relation to military aircraft control—a point that has already been raised by hon. Members. In most EU states, the control of military aircraft is integrated to some degree with civilian air traffic control. I hope to return to the issue a little later.

We in the Opposition accept that the single sky plan would rationalise and, we hope, simplify air traffic arrangements in Europe. That, we believe, will require the EU both to sign up to a new institutional framework and to being part of the decision-making process by working more closely and effectively with Eurocontrol.

Mr. Steen

What one often sees in Europe is duplication and an additional tier of bureaucracy. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should concern us?

Mr. Moss

My hon. Friend anticipates some of the arguments that I shall deploy later in my speech. He is right. It is necessary for the single sky plan to work more closely and effectively with Eurocontrol, which it is not doing at present. The success of the proposal is predicated on that close relationship.

As we know, a target date of December 2004 has been set for implementation of the proposals. We seriously doubt whether that date is achievable. Given the fairly tight time scale, are the individual states any nearer to ceding control of national airspace than they were a few years ago? We suspect not. How much closer are we to agreement between states on the necessary standardisation of national air traffic control arrangements?

Bringing the question nearer to home, is our own NATS system compatible with those in other countries? Can it be easily and inexpensively integrated? If not, what do the Government see as the main difficulties? How will that affect the autonomy and financial viability of the NATS operation, given its parlous financial state since the Government's highly contentious part-privatisation and the events of last September?

One advantage that we do have with NATS is that we have already separated regulation from service provision. That must be an essential starting point in any new EU-wide arrangements—a requirement with which countries such as France would have great difficulty in complying, because those two functions are both still carried out by a single Government Department.

What of the opposition from air traffic controllers and their unions? We have witnessed graphic examples of such opposition in both Spain and France in recent days. Are the actions of the French unions merely a bargaining position for better pay and conditions, or are they a sign of more fundamental and deep-seated opposition to the creation of a single European sky on grounds of political dogma? Given the part-privatisation of our own NATS, are there real fears that a new pan-European air traffic control system would be ripe for private picking? The EU Commissioner, Miss Loyola de Palacio, pleads her innocence on the matter, but why are the unions still not listening?

In response to a question from a colleague, the Minister did not say where NATS would fit into the possible privatisation on a more Europe-wide scale, if the proposals went ahead.

Given that we all agree that there is a problem, what is the best way to solve it? Does it really require a new EU body to deliver the improvements that we want? Do those who are most enthusiastic about such matters insist on the single European sky project not because it will best deliver the answers that we seek, but rather because it fits into the political framework of the Single European Act and other matters integrationist?

Rationalisation is a precursor of any improvement in service delivery, but could that not be achieved through co-operation and standardisation between neighbouring countries? What about the improvements to technical programmes? It is my understanding that Eurocontrol is working on a number of programmes that, by its own estimates, if all members adopted them, could increase air traffic capacity by some 60 per cent. by 2005. Those programmes include such measures as reducing the vertical separation minimums from 2,000 ft to 1,000 ft; enhancing flow management; reducing radio frequency spacing; new modes of radar to improve ground-to-air information transmission; and free-route airspace, giving greater autonomy and control to individual pilots.

If those measures can be achieved by individual states operating autonomously, and a 60 per cent. improvement is predicted by 2005, that raises the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) posed: why do we need a new arrangement if, by improving the technical programmes, substantial improvements could be achieved in a few years?

Mr. Steen

My hon. Friend kindly mentions my comments. At present, there are navigational air transport services all over Europe catering for the aircraft that fly into their airspace. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am worried that all the measures that come to our Committee tend to be more, more, more—not necessarily better, better, better. The problem with the open sky control concept is the assumption that because it will be managed centrally, it will be better. Does my hon. Friend agree that central management is sometimes worse?

Mr. Moss

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The thrust of my argument is whether it is necessary to go down that road, when we can achieve improvements on an individual basis by appealing to nation states to improve their own air traffic control. Those who have influence in these matters may well feel that, by signing up to some over-arching EU arrangement, those who wish to dictate and prescribe will have more power to their elbow to deliver the things that they want.

I have set out a proposal whereby we increase air traffic capacity by up to 60 per cent. without the need to sign up to a centralising body that may become ever more prescriptive, ever more regulatory and ever more outside political control. The big "if" is whether there could be the level of co-operation necessary to achieve the objectives or whether they are doomed to failure because of individual states insisting on their own autonomy.

Is it an all-or-nothing scenario? If the EU cannot get agreement, does the whole project gather dust on the shelves? If unanimity is unobtainable, would there not be some merit in working with Eurocontrol to encourage the more forward-looking states to adapt some or all of their programmes? The Minister said nothing about the plan B that will be used if the EU fails to get agreement on plan A. There is an assumption that all the proposals will be signed up to in good time for December 2004, but I suspect that that might prove more difficult than he and others envisage. If that happens, what is plan B? Will he tell the House what the Government intend to do if the plans do not come to fruition?

Why is it necessary to create this new centralising body when the main problem of congestion lies in the sectors straddling from north to south the centre of the EU area? The zone embraces Italy, Spain, Switzerland—I understand that it is not part of the EU, but it is inside the zone—and parts of Germany. I am told that those countries are responsible for about 44 per cent. of air traffic flow management delays and 30 per cent. of bottlenecks. Of course, Greece was once a problem in that context, but the Greeks have addressed the problems and significantly improved their air traffic control. Thus, it can be shown that if a nation state addresses the internal problems of its own air traffic control system, significant improvements can be made.

As I said, one area that still raises serious concerns is the relationship between air traffic control and defence and security policies—another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. The matter was raised at some length last January in the most recent report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, which was entitled "Reducing Air Traffic Delays: Civil and Military Management of Airspace in Europe". The report was critical of certain aspects of the Commission's proposals. First, although the Commission attempted to clarify the relationship between the new European sky committee and Eurocontrol, the Committee felt that the proposals did not go "far enough". It recommended that the Single Sky Proposals for the future of Eurocontrol be spelt out. It also discerned a lack of clarity in the relationship between the single sky proposals and the non-EU members of Eurocontrol. The Minister mentioned non-EU members earlier in answer to a question, but he did not deal with the point about the ongoing relationship between non-EU members and the single sky body.

On civil and military issues, there is still uncertainty about how to accommodate the military. The House of Lords European Union Committee pointed out the contradiction in the Government's position. On the one hand, the Government strongly oppose the idea that military operations be brought under the first pillar of the EU, but on the other they support the concept of flexible use of airspace, which they expect to form part of the Commission's proposals under the first pillar. The Committee recommended that the Government make clear their position on that issue. Given that some, if not all, military operations could not be included in the first pillar, how do the Government—or the Commission, for that matter—propose to resolve the serious issues that that raises? Does the Minister recognise a need for institutional arrangements outside the first pillar to provide a forum for civil/military liaison, a framework in which sensitive military issues affecting air traffic management can be raised and a way of involving states outside the EU?

The Minister mentioned Gibraltar. I understand that the agreement between the UK and Spain allowed the European single sky proposals to be launched last year, but does it also allow the EU's accession to Eurocontrol to go ahead? The Minister looks puzzled. What I am getting at is that we have got the agreement to proceed with the single European sky proposals, but does that mean that we can also easily move into an accession to Eurocontrol?

On the face of it, the proposals have some merit, if they can achieve the laudable objectives that they set out to achieve. However, we have serious doubts that unanimity will be found and agreement reached. In case the matter has not proceeded as planned by December 2004, we are anxious that the Government address that possibility and make proposals of their own.

8.25 pm

Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh)

This is the first debate on air traffic services on the Floor of the House since the partial privatisation of National Air Traffic Services, the UK air traffic control system, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) pointed out. The proposals for a single European sky raise questions and concerns, some of which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has already addressed.

One of the most important issues, to which both speakers have referred, is military air traffic control. The European Commission understandably wants to eliminate delays and problems caused by what it calls "national frontiers in the sky". That is fair enough, but surely there must be national frontiers in relation to the respective air forces of the member states of the EU. I see that it is the Government's view that the military authorities should not be bound by the regulations.

Let me turn to the important matter of co-operation between civil and military providers of air traffic services. Our Royal Air Force pilots must train, and some of that training has to be in UK airspace, over these islands. We always said that one of the reasons why the UK air traffic control system has been admired throughout the word is the successful co-operation between the military and the civil side. As everyone present in this debate will know, our military controllers operate on the same premises as the civil controllers. Such co-ordination does not exist elsewhere. I understand that in France, for example, there is no such dialogue between military and civilian controllers. I hope that the new framework of operation that is to be established to facilitate the partial privatisation of NATS will not jeopardise co-operation between our civil and military controllers in any way.

I turn now to investment in National Air Traffic Services. One of the main arguments advanced by the Government for the partial privatisation of NATS was that it would facilitate investment. We all acknowledge that the financial position of NATS was weakened by the downturn in traffic after the events of 11 September, but the Minister will be aware of the great dismay in Scotland about the announcement by NATS that the new Scottish centre is to be delayed. There is a desperate need for the new Scottish centre.

My right hon. Friend the Minister may be aware of the statement that I had the privilege to make five years ago this month, with the full authority of the Deputy Prime Minister, confirming our support for the two-centre strategy for the UK. In that statement, it was pointed out that the equipment at Prestwick was almost 20 years old. If it was 20 years old five years ago, hon. Members will need no assistance in working out that it is a quarter of a century old now. Will he give us an idea of when he now expects the investment in the new Scottish centre to come through, so that the work can get under way? Is it still the Government's position that the new Scottish centre will not be completed until 2008 or 2009?

Another matter that I had the opportunity to deal with when I was Minister for Transport was the establishment of a European aviation safety authority—EASA. The UK supported EASA strongly and we secured under our presidency the decision to proceed with it. I see that the EU Transport Council adopted the regulation establishing EASA only last week. With our tremendous aviation sector, it seemed to us at the time that the UK had a very strong case for securing the headquarters. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House where the decision making has got to with regard to the location of EASA's HQ?

I should like to say a brief word about liberalisation and competition. We need to be clear that a competitive framework for air traffic control could pose serious difficulties for air traffic services in this country and elsewhere in Europe. No doubt liberalisation and competition could drive down costs and probably prices, but what are those costs? They are the people who have done so well in managing our airspace until now—the air traffic controllers, engineers and other support staff. Many engineers have taken redundancy from NATS since it was privatised. It would be a great mistake if the huge body of expertise at NATS was disbanded to be replaced by inexperienced new people supplied by private contractors. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great concern that the agenda for air traffic control in Europe is one of competition and privatisation. How far down the track would the Commission be allowed to drive such a market-oriented policy?

Of course, we support measures that will reduce delays for holidaymakers and business people in Europe, but always transcending that is the need for the highest attainable standards of security and safety. By the highest standards, we in the UK mean standards that are considerably higher than any that are likely to be set by a regulator. Today's debate is of great importance, because Parliament will have a duty to scrutinise very closely the development of European policy on air traffic control.

8.30 pm

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)

I, too, welcome the opportunity for this topical debate. The newspapers have recently been full of stories about delays, strikes and allegations of pilots on the cheap flights airlines taking short cuts.

One of the key drivers pushing the single European sky proposals is the issue of air traffic delays. A couple of years ago, it was estimated that the cost of delays is 8 billion euros—roughly £5 billion. It is calculated that about 50 per cent. of delays are due to the airspace management structures in Europe. Huge environmental costs are associated with delays, whether it be aircraft stacking above airports or aircraft that cannot take the shortest possible route from A to B.

The single European sky appears to have several advantages. First, it could lead to a more efficient system. Other hon. Members have referred to the air traffic control system in the United States, which does a lot more for a lot less—it is estimated to be about 70 per cent. more efficient than Europe's systems. Secondly, it could create extra capacity—although I should be interested to hear the Minister's view on whether we are over-egging the pudding in that respect, because many of the bottlenecks will remain around European airports, irrespective of whether a single European sky is achieved.

Thirdly, the single European sky could reduce pressure on air traffic controllers, which might in turn lead to less pressure resulting from the need to train additional controllers. There is a recognised shortage of controllers, which may be exacerbated in the UK by the fact that higher wages are paid abroad. Fourthly, it could improve safety by making flight paths more logical. Finally, as the Minister said, it could mean that the UK industry was well positioned to take advantage of any business prospects.

The single European sky has potential disadvantages, too. Hon. Members will be all too aware of the political minefield that it represents in terms of perceived or actual loss of sovereignty. There is also the question of military independence. The Minister is right to oppose the extension of the proposals to military operations in which the UK requires flexibility.

The Government need to answer several questions. First, do they have a clear view about how airspace would be allocated to the different nations in moving away from border-based sectors to more logical sectors that do not represent country borders? Secondly, do they have a clear understanding of how the single sky regulator would operate? Thirdly, we have heard the implementation date of December 2004. I believe that that is optimistic, and that a fallback position is required. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have made any independent assessment of that implementation date?

If the Minister can answer those questions, the single European sky should prove to be a positive development. However, it is important that harmonisation does not lead to a lowering of standards; British standards, practices and procedures must still prevail. Nor should it lead to a loss of military independence, so the military opt-out that the Minister proposes is welcome. Harmonisation is necessary for safety reasons and because it provides benefits to the consumer and to the environment. For those reasons, Liberal Democrat Members support the proposals.

8.36 pm

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)

I shall deal first with the issues on which there is general agreement. On the inevitability of "Euro-sky", there is general agreement that at some stage over the next decade there will be a need for the integration of regulation across Europe. There is general agreement that that may lead to closer co-operation and, in turn, economies of scale, as outlined by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).

There is general agreement, as there was in the debate about air traffic control processes in this country, that there should be a split between regulation and service providers. There are concerns about whether the proposals can be delivered by December 2004, especially given the delaying mechanisms of the six-month consultation period and the veto that could be exercised by non-Commission members. It is generally recognised in the aviation industry that a complex process of negotiation and consultation is involved.

Those are the points of agreement. The points of concern being expressed by those who work in, or have a knowledge of, the industry are that the proposals could become—pardon the pun—a launch pad for privatisation on a European scale, following what happened to national air traffic control services in this country. Industrial action is occurring in many parts of Europe because of those anxieties.

It is worth while for the Government to state that the proposals have nothing to do with privatising air traffic control services throughout Europe. It would be useful if, as a Government, we had the humility to explain to our European colleagues that we had experienced the privatisation of air traffic control services and that we had learned our lesson.

I do not want to go into detail about the air traffic control experience so far, but I shall briefly mention some facts. Last Christmas, the air traffic control workers in my constituency could not have their wages because of a cash-flow problem; the airline company group that has taken over air traffic control returns month after month for additional public subsidies; the Government are so desperate for the British Airports Authority to bail out air traffic control services that they are willing to bribe it with a new runway at Heathrow.

I do not want to go into such detail about the failure of air traffic control services as privatised by the Government. However, despite assurances so far, some of the documentation that the Government have published links the single European sky proposal with privatisation. I am referring to the helpful bundle of documents that the Vote Office provided, especially the report entitled "Explanatory Memorandum on European Community Document", which was submitted by the Department for Environment, Local Government and the Regions on 18 January 2000. It was signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is no longer an Under-Secretary of State and has returned home to the Back Benches. He has clearly maintained his interest in air traffic control matters, and is not with us tonight. I do not believe that he wanted to be associated with anything that happened previously.

On the single European sky proposals, the document states: Similarly, the Commission's assertion that commercial sector methods and expertise should be employed in air traffic service provision…is fully in keeping with current UK thinking. Yet again, the Government are perceived as a proselytiser for privatisation of air traffic control throughout Europe. There is no reference in the documents to a Commission proposal for advocating the use of commercial sector methods and expertise in air traffic control.

The high-level group's proposals make only one reference to a link between the environment for air traffic control and the discussion about monopoly services. The group said that although core air traffic control was a monopoly, there was an opportunity for competition for ancillary services. It did not refer to the introduction of commercial practices in air traffic control.

David Cairns

For the sake of completeness, my hon. Friend should include the phrase that he left out of the quote from the document signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). It says that air traffic control should be "regulated robustly". That does not detract from the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument, but it is important that robust regulation forms part of the Government's strategy.

John McDonnell

I omitted the phrase not to be disingenuous but because I said in my introductory remarks that there was no dispute between us about the separation of service delivery and regulation. Robust regulation has been the standard that British air traffic control services set the world. That is why I did not refer to the phrase. However, my hon. Friend can understand the anxiety that the fact that the UK Government are advocating the introduction of commercial sector methods and expertise causes air traffic controllers throughout Europe. We can understand the reason for their anxiety that the proposal may be a stepping stone to privatisation.

It is worthwhile for the Government to state on the record that we have learned from our experience of privatising air traffic control in this country and that we do not advocate privatisation as part of the open sky policy. It is worth stating that we want to consider integration without privatisation. Two thousand air traffic control staff have been laid off or are under threat of losing their jobs in Britain because of part-privatisation—so no wonder air traffic controllers in Europe are anxious about their jobs when the British Government advocate privatisation on the back of a Euro-sky proposal.

The expression that we are "all Thatcherites now" is inappropriate in the context of air traffic control. Privatisation has failed in almost every other transport sector, and is failing in our air traffic control services. We have never experienced so many breakdowns, loss of morale on such a scale, so many job losses or such underinvestment. British air traffic control has approached bankruptcy many times. A statement that our Euro-sky policy is not based on privatisation would be welcomed throughout Europe.

8.44 pm

David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde)

Like other hon. Members, I shall not labour the points of agreement between us, other than to say that I welcome the proposals. They are extremely important, not just for the industry—we are talking in terms of billions of pounds for the industry—but for our individual constituents who experience dreadful delays. They work very hard all year round, get a couple of weeks' holiday, then spend huge chunks of time at the beginning and end of their holiday sitting around in airport lounges. That is not a pleasant experience, and it is one that those of us who are frequent fliers also encounter. If we can cut delays and increase capacity in the skies, the provisions will benefit not only a big industry but individuals.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) mentioned that the national boundaries that exist on the ground are often utterly meaningless at 30,000 ft; the rivers, mountain ranges and forests that have given rise to national boundaries become less important in the open skies. Such boundaries should not, therefore, be a sufficient reason to hold us back from moving towards a new system and a new way of thinking about air traffic management. We all agree that reform is needed; it is perhaps the nature of the reform that is causing some consternation.

I was slightly confused by some of the comments by Members. On one hand, they appeared to assert that the provisions would result in duplication, with more committees and more bureaucrats considering the issue. On the other, we heard the assertion that the measures would centralise the system and introduce just one way of doing things. There was a slight contradiction there. We cannot duplicate and streamline at the same time—or perhaps we can, but I do not think that that was quite the thrust of the argument coming from the Opposition Benches, where there just seemed to be confusion.

As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said, we are talking not of centralisation but of greater harmonisation. That will involve the harmonisation of systems, software, hardware and training. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the shortage of trained air traffic controllers in this country. Part of the difficulty in allowing air traffic controllers to take their labour to other parts of Europe is caused by the different specifications involved in different air traffic control training programmes. If we could achieve greater harmonisation there, we would have greater fluidity of movement of labour across the continent, which would he all to the good.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the fear that the measures are about privatisation. Privatisation and methods of ownership are not prescribed in the document. What is prescribed, however—and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it—is the unacceptable situation in which the providers of the service are also the regulators. That situation is untenable and ought to be challenged.

There has also been discussion about the civil and military aspects of air traffic management. An example from my own neck of the woods, which involves another medium of transport, is that of the flow of traffic on the River Clyde. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh will know that the Clyde port authority is the largest such authority in western Europe, and is very busy because of the amount of commercial and military shipping—including Trident nuclear submarines—that uses the river.

Until a few years ago, there was a staggering lack of co-operation between the harbourmaster based in Greenock, who was in charge of the commercial shipping, and the military personnel based at Faslane, who were in charge of the naval shipping. The harbourmaster would often send ships off down the coast, only for them to turn the corner and see seven French frigates coming up for an exercise that he knew nothing about. There has been much more co-operation at that level recently, and it is clearly not beyond the wit of Governments to ensure that such co-operation takes place in the skies above us. The Minister for Transport, as a former Defence Minister, seems ideally placed to bridge that gap.

Those who say that privatisation intrinsically raises issues of safety often point to Railtrack—although that has not happened in this debate. I have said repeatedly that I feel no less safe on a British Airways flight today than I did when British Airways was a nationalised industry, 15 years ago. I do not believe that it is axiomatic that the involvement of private sector expertise necessarily compromises safety. Of course a robust regulatory system must have safety at its core, and I hope that the Minister will convince us that he agrees with that.

There seems still to be some confusion about the residual role of Eurocontrol in a single-sky environment—particularly with regard to the EU's position as an acceded member of Eurocontrol—and about the relationship between Eurocontrol and the EU's new single sky committee. I have studied the documents in some depth, but I am still not sure about the exact relationship between Eurocontrol, the European Union as an acceded member of Eurocontrol, and the EU single sky committee. I hope the Minister can clarify the position.

In general, however—like most Members who have spoken—I welcome the proposals, which I consider very necessary. They will be costly, but the cost of doing nothing—that is, increasing delays—would be greater, to the airlines, to the wider economy to which the airlines are tremendously important, and to our constituents who have to waste time in airports. I am pleased that action is now being taken.

8.50 pm

Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes)

I hope the House will forgive me for not having listened to all the speeches. The Minister, of course, will have listened to all of them assiduously, and taken on board all that was said.

I must declare a number of interests. We have to declare so many interests that we must be careful not to overlook any. I think I must declare my membership of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, but if that is not necessary I declare it anyway. I am also an adviser to Airlines of Great Britain. In fact I have been an adviser to a number of airlines, both as a former practising lawyer and as a politician. I am sorry to say, however, that most of the airlines I have advised have gone bust, so I have not many left to declare. I do not know whether that has anything to do with my advice, or whether they have all got bigger, or worse. I think I have to declare the interest anyway, although the airlines I have advised have not done terribly well. One or two have kept going, however.

I shall be brief, as I know the debate must finish at 9.15 pm. I suspect that the Minister called it just to get the feeling of the House—if there is any feeling. Not many people turn up for aviation debates: the subject is technical, people do not really understand it, and they have other things to do. It is obviously important, however, for the Minister to get some feeling of what the House is thinking. I do not know whether he has got that feeling, or whether the House has been thinking or saying anything useful—or, indeed, whether it really matters. We have tremendous discussions in the European Scrutiny Committee, but it does no good. The Government go on doing whatever they want, and Europe goes on doing whatever it wants. Nevertheless, I think it useful for the Minister to take account of what is said in a personal capacity, although I do not think he will do anything with it.

What concerns me is whether the operation of a single market would be improved by the establishment of a Community body responsible for the creation of a single Community airspace. It seems rather as though a wizard were to enter Europe, wave his wand and say, "This is all one airspace". The airspace has come into being over a number of years as an airspace over the countries concerned, which have built up quite efficient air navigation schemes. People may not think them efficient, but very few accidents have been caused by error other than human error, and the machinery and mechanical equipment for navigation aids is now excellent. Ours in Britain is state of the art.

I am not sure why the Government believe that another body with more staff and bureaucracy will be better. I am reminded of the fact that if the word "safety" is used in the House, any rule or regulation—any statutory instrument—is passed immediately because no Member will ever vote against safety. Another buzzword is "security": as soon as it is mentioned, the regulation or statutory instrument will go through. The most recent example is the word "hygiene". Any measure deemed to be hygienic, or related to health and safety, will be accepted.

In this instance, everyone wants faster planes and more slots. Everyone wants to think the system is safer, and everyone assumes that if another body is created it is bound to be safer. That is not necessarily the case. Let us compare air traffic control in Poland—hopefully, it will be part of the enlargement of the EU—with that in Britain. They are miles apart. Such systems probably work over their own space, but I am not sure about trying to make them uniform, which is what this idea is about.

The Minister is a very good salesman. He will tell us that this is the best thing since sliced bread. He will use the word "safety" all the time and we will all say that this is wonderful—but is it wonderful? I do not know how we are going to judge. Is it ever going to happen? Is there ever going to be a wizard waving his wand over all the skies of the EU? Remember that another 12 EU countries will come in. No sooner will the sky be sorted out over the first 15 but another 12 will come on board.

This is a lovely idea; we all like it. I thank the Minister for bringing it to the House. We have had a good run for an hour or so and he has heard the views of some of his colleagues, who are using the debate for various reasons. It does not affect what he is doing. It is courteous of him to come along to tell us all his ideas. He wants to wave that wand over the sky and make it all one place, but I hope he will agree in reality that not much will happen other than this one-and-a-half-hour debate on whether it is a good idea.

With regret, I say: full steam ahead, get on with it, let us get it going tomorrow morning. The Minister will know that it is unlikely and that in 10 years we will not have seen anything at all. I thank him on behalf of the House for coming along and doing what he has done. I hope that I have thrown in my two pennyworth in this useful debate.

8.56 pm

Mr. Spellar

I do not recall that it was entirely optional to attend this evening, but I am delighted that we were able to provide the opportunity for a constructive debate. One often says from the Dispatch Box that it has been a constructive debate, but on this occasion I actually mean it. The comments have largely been directed at the issue. Rightly, matters have been raised that have not necessarily been resolved but are still under discussion in Europe. I shall try to deal with some of those during my contribution, but may need to write to hon. Members.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will allow me not to follow him all the way down his various arguments, which might be slightly diversionary. The fact that I do not do so should not be construed as agreement with a number of those arguments. I disagree with some of his comments, but he takes a keen interest in the aviation industry and is a strong representative on behalf of his constituents who work at the airport. We have worked constructively on a number on issues—for example, on the issue of kirpans for staff at Heathrow and at other airports.

What I found useful about the discussion was that there was a broad recognition of the existence of a problem: there are difficulties in European airspace capacity and that leads to bottlenecks. That in turn leads not only to delays but, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) rightly pointed out, to considerable environmental consequences: for example, the time that aircraft spend in the air needlessly using fuel.

There was an attempt to create a distinction between airspace and the impact on airports, but it is increasingly recognised that if there are delays in en-route airspace, particularly with the tight timetables that many of the no-frills airlines operate on, those can have considerable knock-on effects at airports and on schedules, and should not be underestimated. That is particularly a problem with a number of the bottlenecks in European airspace.

The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) said that we would use the issue of safety as a way of carrying the proposal. The situation is quite different. Safety is a prerequisite; it is an absolutely essential component that must underlie any system that we have, whether the current system or an improved one. It is essential and does not affect the argument one way or the other. We are talking today about capacity and, consistent with safety, realising the capacity to deal not only with existing problems, but with the increasing demand for air travel. We will put that in the wider public domain with the regional airport studies that will be published shortly. We are dealing with one aspect of the increase in demand and the need for capacity.

Mr. Steen

As I recall, during the terminal 4 inquiry, the deal was for 275,000 movements at Heathrow a year. As a result of navigational improvements, the figure is up to 400,000 movements a year. That has happened incrementally. At the same time, planes are getting bigger, so we could end up with a situation in which we do not need more airspace. Instead, there will be a need for ever bigger planes. Has that been considered?

Mr. Spellar

The hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me further into issues that will be debated publicly in a short time. He is right to say that larger planes are enabling more people to travel, without there being necessarily a commensurate increase in air movements. However, running parallel to that, there has been a huge increase in point-to-point flights. That is particularly the case with many of the no-frills airlines, which are operating not necessarily from major hub airports but from many others. That does not add to congestion at hub airports, but it does add to congestion in en-route airspace.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) referred to the new Scottish centre at Prestwick. I can assure them that the Government have not shifted one inch in our commitment to the two-centre strategy for National Air Traffic Services, including the Prestwick centre. The only issue is timing, for obvious reasons that have been mentioned. We shall ensure that NATS builds the centre as soon as future traffic forecasts make it viable to do so.

The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) asked why we could not proceed voluntarily through Eurocontrol. Eurocontrol has done a good job on many of the technical harmonisation aspects, but it is essentially a voluntary agreement between 31 member states and progress, understandably, has been slow. A number of major Eurocontrol programmes have been delivered late, or have not been as effectively implemented as we would have hoped. The greater authority of the EU allied to the technical capacity of Eurocontrol is a recipe for the more rapid progress that, for the reasons I have outlined, we believe to be increasingly urgent.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington asked about the 2004 deadline and whether it was optimistic. In the Council working group, progress has been slower than we hoped, but we still believe that there is every prospect that the single sky framework will be in place by the end of 2004 as planned. It has been recognised that implementation will be a gradual process that will be spread over a number of years.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh asked about military airspace. It is true that military aviation accounts for only 4 per cent. of aviation, although there are some localised issues related to that. However, that does not detract from the essential position; we have made it perfectly clear in the negotiations that we will not allow military operations to come within Community jurisdiction, under the first pillar of the treaty of the EU. As I also said, that view is shared by several other states.

Tom Brake

On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), if civil and military air traffic control no longer work together—if the former is conducted on the basis of a single European sky and the latter is kept separate—might that not lead to less harmonisation, and therefore to an increased risk to safety?

Mr. Spellar

No, I certainly do not see that happening. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the UK has had considerable success in harmonising requirements and ensuring compatibility in terms of resources. However, it is clear that this is a matter of national competence, which is an extremely important principle for many other reasons.

The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire also asked about NATS compatibility with the single European sky. As he knows, NATS is widely recognised as a leading air traffic service provider. It has invested heavily in new equipment—notably at Swanwick—and is already ahead of the rest of Europe in that regard. We do not envisage the single European sky placing an additional financial burden on NATS; indeed, it could win more work in a liberalised air traffic market.

I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that undertakings with an individual state in respect of ownership have no bearing on the liberalisation of air traffic control; such matters are rightly those for the individual state concerned. As I said in my opening statement, the route that we have taken enables us to provide better, cost-effective services for the travelling public. However, privatisation of individual entities is not a prerequisite to liberalisation of the market.

Mr. Moss

The Minister talks about liberalisation of the European market, but one of the objectives is to reduce the 73 existing air traffic control centres to something more manageable, which must involve a dilution of the importance of the nation state and of national control. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, surely many centres will therefore be ripe for amalgamation and takeover by the private sector.

Mr. Spellar

That is not a prerequisite. [Interruption.] No, liberalisation of the market, coupled with transparency in accounting procedures to ensure a level playing field, is perfectly compatible with different forms of ownership. It is right to debate this issue, but there is no prerequisite in terms of the European single sky and liberalisation of the market.

John McDonnell

It is accepted that there is no prerequisite, but air traffic controllers across Europe are anxious that the UK Government are becoming advocates of privatisation as the next stage in the process. An assurance from the Minister that the Government are not in fact advocating privatisation would go some way towards reassuring many of them.

Mr. Spellar

We are not advocating the idea that other countries run their businesses in a particular way, save that we should all work for the most effective use of European airspace, in the manner outlined in the single European sky proposals from the European Commission.

This has been a constructive debate in which the principal issues have been aired. It is also clear that there is some considerable way to go, and that the subject is one to which we shall doubtless return. However, we should bear in mind the fact that there is widespread recognition of the underlying problems, and of the need to make progress on behalf of the aviation industry and—perhaps more significantly—of the travelling public.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 13735/99, Commission Communication on the creation of a Single European Sky, No. 12692/1/01, Commission Communication and draft Regulation laying down the framework for the creation of a Single European Sky, and No. 12693/1/01, draft Regulations on the provision of air navigation services, organisation and use of airspace and technical interoperability in the Single European Sky; considers that the establishment of a single air traffic management (ATM) framework in the Community can best be achieved by establishing and implementing common rules which are developed and monitored centrally; considers that military authorities should not be bound by these regulations; agrees that the operation of the single market would be improved by establishing a Community body responsible for the creation of a single Community airspace with common design, planning and management, for the authorisation of air navigation service providers and certification of air traffic controllers, for ensuring an equitable and transparent charging regime for air navigation services, and for the development of technical interoperability; supports the Government's position that the model mapped out in the proposals, but excluding its military part, could provide the building blocks to meet these objectives by improving the present European ATM system, reducing air transport delays and the financial and environmental cost associated with them, the key element being that the Single Sky regulator is endowed with sufficient powers and autonomy to make efficient and effective decisions; and supports the Government's intention to press for this approach in the European Union.