Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-10-Speech-1-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020610.7.1-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the current rules relating to slots have worked relatively well considering the extra pressure on the system resulting from the increase in air traffic. But I say ‘relatively’ because the reality is that studies and complaints indicate that, unfortunately, there is often a total lack of transparency in the functioning, the allocation and the development of the use of these slots, and that, furthermore, the various Member States of the Union have not been interpreting the current rules in a uniform manner. Far from it. On this basis, on 20 June 2001, the Commission decided to review the rules and to approach it in two stages. I must point out that all of this coincides with what has been said and repeated in this Parliament on various occasions.
The Commission considers Amendment No 23 to be excessively broad and does not agree with it; we feel the same about Amendment No 25, which ignores the procedural rules, which are an operative requirement for the coordination committee if transparency is to be guaranteed. We therefore reject both. Likewise, Amendments Nos 33 and 34, except the reference to the guidelines at Community level.
We must also reject Amendments Nos 35 and 43, since they impact negatively on the recognised Community law on intermodality and public service obligations.
I would like to add that Amendment No 57, which Mr Pohjamo referred to, introduces a time period which is impossible to comply with. The Commission has just begun a procedure for selecting an expert who will have to produce a report and we will have it in the summer of 2003 at the earliest. The Commission has committed itself to consulting the air transport sector and the Member States on the results of a study on the market system for the allocation of slots before proceeding to a new legislative proposal on this issue.
Finally, we believe that Amendments Nos 2, 15, 26, 38, 45, 46 and 50 are either redundant or inconsistent with worldwide practices in the allocation of slots and therefore we cannot accept them.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that I agree with what Mr Jarzembowski said in relation to urgency. Let us hope that the Council can adopt a decision at the next meeting, although I think that will be difficult, given the development of the technical work.
In any event, I would like to thank you for your contributions and your work, with a very special mention for Mr Stockmann, whose work has been tremendous. I hope that you will support this Commission proposal in the vote tomorrow.
As for the two stages in which we propose to implement this reform, the first stage is aimed at clarifying the different provisions of the Regulation which, on being applied, have proven to be clearly deficient and have led to differing interpretations amongst the Member States. But furthermore it is a question of resolving a series of deficiencies which have been pointed out to us by the airlines and the airports, and by the different operators. Finally, some of you have pointed out something fundamental: the need to define what a slot is and we clearly opt for defining it as a right of use.
We must be aware, however, that this is extremely important if we want to achieve legal certainty and move beyond the current situation in which there is nothing, there is no concrete definition of the nature of slots. Because how can we possibly establish a right of ownership, ladies and gentlemen? There are slots for taking off, for landing, but also for overflying. There are no rights of ownership, but rights of use in relation to a public asset such as airspace, the take-off and landing possibilities other than the facilities of the airports or the areas to be overflown in accordance with the support and assistance provided to air traffic from different locations.
While this is the first stage, which is essentially technical – and I thank Mr Deva for saying that we have achieved a good balance, for that is what I believe we are doing – the second stage is the revision of the possibilities for distributing slots, introducing transparent and non-discriminatory market mechanisms. Of course, we will do so carefully, prudently, in order to prevent any excessive or unbearable shock to our air sector.
Our intention is to consolidate the European air sector; in no way do we intend to weaken it. However, while awaiting this second proposal – for which we are preparing studies which guarantee that this shock does not occur – the current situation must be made clear. With this approach in mind, the proposal intends to guarantee the greatest possible efficiency in the use of such a scarce resource as slots and ensure uniformity in the interpretation of the regulations and the application of the Regulations and therefore in legal certainty. To this end, the proposal introduces effective and transparent procedures and the system of penalties which will allow us to achieve the greatest degree of efficiency without having to modify the system of acquired rights.
I would like to thank Parliament, and especially Mr Stockmann, for the work you have done – in which you have always taken a constructive approach – and for your dedication. We particularly appreciate your balanced and pragmatic approach: we believe that, of the 57 amendments presented, the majority (35 in total) add clarity to the proposal and make it more efficient and therefore the Commission can accept them, with modification in some cases. However, we reject the other 22, which I will refer to briefly.
Firstly, Amendments Nos 53, 54 and 55, which could significantly upset the balance of the proposal, affecting essential points such as the prohibition on creating a black market by means of false exchanges, as well as those relating to penalties. Furthermore, these amendments have not been adopted by the RETT Committee and the Commission must reject them. Secondly, we must reject Amendments Nos 1, 7, 18 and 28, which would significantly change the balanced objectives of the proposal we are presenting today. Amendment No 8 exempts the coordinator from all responsibility, despite their greater obligations and capacities, and the Commission cannot therefore support it.
However, we could accept Amendment No 48 with modifications to the wording in order to guarantee that coordinators are held responsible in the case of serious negligence or wilful misconduct.
Amendment No 20 is incompatible with the definition of a slot and ignores the need to always analyse capacities before imposing the coordination of slots. It must therefore also be rejected."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples