Three short years ago Institute of Professionals Managers and Specialists was fighting Tory plans to privatise National Air Traffic Services. Labour was one of our strongest allies, and IPMS was deeply grateful for its support. Now, sadly, we’re fighting the same battle but this time the protagonist is Labour, after an incredible policy U-turn.

We make no apology for reminding people of Labour’s earlier pronouncements:

• Andrew Smith at the 1996 Labour Party conference promised that: ‘Our air is not for sale.’
• Brian Wilson, as shadow transport minister, declared that: ‘there are some activities to which the profit motive should not apply — and air traffic control is one of them.’
• George Robertson assured us in 1996 that: ‘Labour is wholly and unequivocally opposed to any threat to privatise the provision of air traffic services.’

The U-turn was a slap in the face for IPMS. But to add insult to injury, the government tried to placate us by denying that its plans amounted to privatisation.

Fortunately, nobody was fooled, least of all Conservative transport spokesperson Bernard Jenkin. ‘What is the difference between this public-private partnership and privatisation?’ he asked. ‘Does the minister agree that if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck? If the government are transferring 51 per cent of shares and day-to-day control to the private sector, why is that not privatisation?’

In July the government confirmed its intention to proceed with the sell-off. IPMS has since been trying to tell ministers that privatisation is unnecessary, and that it will undermine air safety. We believe privatisation will change NATS from a safety-driven organisation providing a public service, to a profit-driven company with one eye on shareholders’ demands for dividends.

We have won an enormous amount of support, not least among back-bench MPs. Over 160 MPs signed an early day motion calling on the government to consider a positive alternative to privatisation — an independent, publicly-owned company (IPOC).

Unfortunately we have been unable to raise our concerns with ministers directly. Despite our best efforts, and Tony Blair’s assurance that this is a ‘listening government,’ we are still waiting for meetings with transport ministers.

However, we took some comfort from the fact that the matter would be debated at the Labour Party conference. As a politically-neutral union IPMS has no direct input to the conference, but a number of constituency parties have submitted motions asking the government to reconsider its proposals.

Now it seems the debate may be stifled on procedural grounds. At the time of writing we understand the Conference Arrangements Committee is likely to rule the CLP motions out of order, and there are accusations of conference rigging.

Does the government know its proposals are deeply unpopular but lack the courage to face its critics? What a sad reflection on the new administration. Surely the sign of good leadership is being able to admit when you’ve got something wrong then backing down gracefully, instead of steam-rollering ahead?

• Concerns will be aired at a fringe meeting on Wednesday 29 September, 1pm, at the Roundhouse Hotel, and are also spelt out on our web site at www.ipms.org.uk. If you share those concerns please write to John Prescott as a matter of urgency.

© SCGN October 1999 no.147