division_name: Transport Bill - Transfer schemes made by CAA
motion: <p>Lords amendments considered. 
  
  <p> 
   Lords amendment:  No. 27, in page 27, line 5, at end insert--
   
  ("( ) No direction to make a transfer scheme shall be given under subsection (1) before the first Session of the next Parliament after that in which this Act is passed.")
  <p>
   I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
   
  
  <p> 
      Mr. Speaker:   
   With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 29 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.
   
  
  <p>Our preference is that 49 per cent. of the shares, and a golden share, are held by the Government; and 51 per cent. by private investors including employees.--[ Official Report , 11 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 637W.]
  <p>
  That is exactly the model with which the Government are currently proceeding. The logic that led my right hon. Friend to that conclusion remains the logic that has led the Government to the current proposals.
  <p>We will search out at every turn new ways and new ideas to tackle the new issues . . . how to put the public and private sector together in partnership to give us the infrastructure and transport system we need.
  <p>The guiding objectives of our aviation strategy will be fair competition, safety and environmental standards. We want all British carriers to be able to compete fairly in the interests of consumers.
  <p>The Air Traffic Services Standards Department . . . employs 27 inspectors dealing directly with operational safety issues . . . The CAA currently has no intention to alter the number of inspectors as a result of the completion of the National Air Traffic Services Public Private Partnership.--[ Official Report , 10 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 419W.]
  <p>Commission decides to refer UK to Court concerning BAA.
  <p>savings of between 16 per cent. and 29 per cent. in capital expenditure.
  <p>Labour will do everything we can to block this sell-off. Our air is not for sale.
  <p>will undermine confidence in Air Traffic Control . . . Labour is determined to safeguard quality public service. We shall raise this in the Commons and make it a General Election issue.
  <p>I would like to confirm that the Labour Party are completely opposed to the privatisation of the National Air Traffic Services and under a Labour Government they will remain in the public sector.
  <p>What Andrew Smith said last October was criticism of the particular scheme offered by the government. John Prescott, Margaret Beckett and Andrew Smith have made clear that we don't rule out looking at the privatisation of air traffic control.
  <p>We would have to review this sale because we inherited it from the Conservatives.
  <p>In fact, our argument was that the then Government waited to sell British Telecom until after the election, so they could have done the same with Railtrack.--[ Official Report , 24 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 151.]
  <p>will be able to speak with more authority . . . A decision by the House not to support a proposal from the Government will carry more weight because it will have to include supporters from a range of political and independent opinions. So the Executive will be better held to account.
  <p>impose major operational difficulties on the business. NATS is not a standard utility--safety in the ATC industry is undoubtedly of a different order of importance. One simple distinction is that manning levels are absolutely critical to ATC safety and service delivery, whereas that is not nearly so true in other utilities.
  <p>The cuts in cost and investment currently being proposed by ERG have little foundation in the reality of NATS' business and licence obligations, and so pose very serious risks to the delivery of services to NATS' customers. NATS could neither accept nor implement these proposals.
  <p>than was set for any other utility at privatisation--this is especially inappropriate for a safety activity where service depends on adequate investment.
  <p> 
   
  Cost efficiency--ERG places too much emphasis on cost reduction and neglects the risks to service delivery.
  <p> 
   
  Incentives to invest: ERG's proposals send confusing signals to investors and do not provide the necessary incentives for capital investment.
  <p>We cannot actually keep our shareholders happy at the same time as fulfilling our public service obligations, and that tension is just massive.
  <p>In the early days after privatisation I think we probably did concentrate too much on shareholders and the profit agenda.
   
  
  <p>NATS' prime duty is the safe provision of air traffic control.
  <p>If it gets underway, great. We have heard so many promises up until now. Seeing is believing. It will another five years with the present conditions. There is quite a lot of work going on. Our traffic has increased by eight per cent. every year. That's with no extra staff. The waiting is constant.
  <p>Man, proud man,
  <p> 
   
  Drest in a little brief authority.
  <p>This package, taken together,--
  <p>will guarantee the highest safety standards as air transport increases in the future.--[ Official Report , 11 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 637W.]
  <p>
  He said in a press release issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions:
  <p> 
   
  Safety will remain the overriding priority with NATS subject to independent safety regulation to a very high standard.
  <p>It being three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Ways and Means resolution,  Mr. Speaker,  pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
  <p>Question put,  That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 321, Noes 228.
  