Labour's 1997 manifesto promised better standards and safety for
the UK's airspace. But at the start of a new millennium, has its
part-privatisation of the National Air Traffic Services (Nats)
delivered safer skies?
The ever-increasing pressure on airspace demands that British air
traffic control be built on a solid foundation; a foundation that
is focused entirely on safety. Labour argued that the private
sector could run these highly complex and safety-critical IT
systems more efficiently and effectively than government employees.
But the truth is that since the new £623m air traffic control
system at Swanwick was switched on, and the public-private
partnership (PPP) deal completed, air traffic control has been the
subject of many scare stories.
During the summer months, safety and Swanwick have featured in many
news reports. Public perception of British aviation is being
influenced by leaked information, vicious backbiting and select
committee reports highlighting the precarious state of Britain's
skies.
Nats' chief operating officer Colin Chisholm recently described the
company's service as "truly awful". Is this a damaging corporate
mutiny - in true Gerald Ratner style - or a candid assessment of
Nats' strengths and weaknesses?
His views are consistent with those of other Nats staff, who are
constantly warning of limits being reached, of tolerances in danger
of being exceeded, of inadequate user interfaces. Their views
appear to be being marginalised. Yet this is no workforce ignorant
of the business and technical issues. These are professional
people, ever conscious of the responsibility of a stressful job,
where mistakes can have catastrophic consequences.
Through the Government's desperate desire to complete the part
privatisation of air traffic control Nats has been left with an
unprecedented and unsustainable level of debt. Financially, PPP is
costlier than government control. The advantage of this type of
funding is supposed to be that risk is transferred to the private
sector but this transfer is artificial.
If Nats were to hit the financial rocks, government will still be
held accountable for providing safe and efficient air traffic
control services.The structure for Nats chosen by this Government
might have introduced risk of a different type. A number of
airlines now have a major financial stake in air traffic control.
What happens if these airlines become economically unstable?
Liberal Democrats are totally opposed to this model of PPP for
public services; better models exist. The Labour-dominated Commons
transport sub-committee has also expressed opposition to plans for
a public-private partnership.
We do recognise that substantial sums need to be invested in new
air traffic systems. If the Treasury is unwilling to authorise
necessary borrowing, then Nats could be set up as a trust (Canada
has adopted this model) which falls outside the Public Sector
Borrowing Requirement, but remains a non-profit making
organisation. This would provide the funds to renew the
infrastructure. It would also maintain our reputation for not
compromising on safety, which should not be taken for granted.
Only this summer, the European air traffic control centre,
Eurocontrol, advised airlines to find routes "avoiding UK
airspace". While this incident related specifically to severe
delays on 25 July, it is like thunder before the storm in an
industry where international perception of British aviation is
crucial.
This Government has developed an unhealthy obsession with PPP. It
is about to sign a 30-year deal covering the maintenance of track
and signalling on London Underground which many have described as a
"poll tax on wheels".
The handing over of a substantial share of our air traffic control
system to a group of airlines could yet prove to be Labour's "poll
tax on wings".
Tom Brake worked in IT for 13 years, before being
elected MP for Carshalton and Wallington in 1997. He is the Liberal
Democrat spokesman on transport