Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020903.2.2-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are going to deal with a legislative package aimed at establishing the Single European Sky. The main objective of all these measures is simply to respond to the problem of congestion in European airspace without reducing its safety, but rather increasing it.
I would also like to add the following considerations on certain amendments in the report by Mrs Sanders-ten Holte. Amendment No 13, on the principle of the separation of the national monitoring authorities from the air navigation service providers affects the reasonable compromise found at the time of the negotiations within the High-level Group, where – I would remind Members – all the countries of the Union, as well as Norway and Switzerland, were represented.
I share the view that the cooperation between the civil and military sectors is a key factor for the success of the Single European Sky and, in fact, our legislative proposals are intended to create the conditions necessary to stimulate that cooperation. But Amendments Nos 57 and 59 go further than we are allowed under the current distribution of competences and therefore the first pillar. Amendments Nos 14 and 51 introduce appeal mechanisms which are already provided for within national procedures.
With regard to the report by Mrs Maes, on the safety of third-country aircraft, this proposal is intended to improve air safety through the creation of an inspection system for third-country aircraft aimed at verifying their conformity with international safety standards. The Commission had presented a proposal on this issue in 1997, which had not been able to be approved until today because of the argument over the Gibraltar airport. The proposal now presented to Parliament includes the provisions of the common position which the Council had approved previously, as well as the amendments approved by the European Parliament at second reading. The rapporteur, Mrs Maes, whom I would like to thank, has agreed to this new proposal and the Commission is satisfied with the report adopted by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism.
In fact, we are in a position to accept the majority of the 23 amendments; five of them, with regard to their principles, with a different wording, and some others also with certain textual changes.
Nevertheless, there are seven amendments which the Commission sees as problematic and I would therefore like to make the following observations: firstly, the list of shortcomings which appears in Amendment No 3 is restrictive in relation to the data available to the Commission; secondly, Amendment No 6 is not acceptable either, since the proposal for a Directive relates solely to third-country aircraft and not to aircraft of Member States of the Union. The same can be said of Amendment No 8, which would allocate new responsibilities to the European Air Safety Agency and this would require amending the Regulation establishing it, and of Amendment No 10, which is outside the scope of the proposed Directive. Amendment No 14 does not seem to us to be necessary, since the Commission’s proposal specifies that all complaints are admissible, and Amendment No 15 would give the aircraft inspection authorities considerable additional work and anyway the practical usefulness of the supplementary information requested seems to us be doubtful to say the least. Finally, Amendment No 17 is outside the scope of the inspections covered by the Directive and would contradict the principles of the Chicago Convention, and we must therefore reject it.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope I have clarified the Commission’s position with regard to the various reports which are the subject of this joint debate. Nobody doubts that the reports which Parliament will approve tomorrow will contribute significantly to the safety, efficiency and punctuality of air traffic in Europe.
Once again, I would like to thank the competent committee in general for its work and the rapporteurs, Mr Fava, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte and Mrs Maes, in particular, because they have done some very commendable work on issues which are very technical and complex.
Once again we must remember that that is our main concern and priority, above all following the tragic accident of Überlingen – where regrettably a number of people were killed – and which left us with the feeling that it should have, and could have, been prevented.
Our intention is to introduce a harmonised regulatory framework which governs the management of air traffic in the European Union, thereby facilitating better management of the airspace and improving safety.
I would point out that the Single Sky was one of the initiatives that President Prodi announced during his investiture debate as a political priority for a Europe which is close to the citizens. Over these three years we have been working on this issue, and today is the day to achieve concrete results.
Turning now to the actual reports, I am firstly going to mention those by the rapporteurs, Mr Fava and Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, which recognise the strategic importance and maturity of the initiative on the Single Sky. I would like to express my satisfaction with the support the competent committee has lent by studying these proposals here in Parliament and, once again, I would like to thank the European Parliament for its cooperation and work.
With regard more specifically to the amendments, the Commission is able to accept the majority of them; some with changes of wording better suited to the text and others partially, since these amendments generally clarify and strengthen our initial proposals. However, the Commission cannot accept and must therefore reject Amendments Nos 1, 2, 13, 19, 24, 27, 29, 34, 35 and 37 to 40 of Mr Fava’s report, and Amendments Nos 3, 12, 13, 14, 26, 46, 50, 51, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 66, 75, 77 to 80 and 83 to 107 of the report by Mrs Sanders-ten Holte.
If you will allow me, I would like to make some observations on the amendments of most importance. Firstly, I am thinking above all of those which relate to relations with Eurocontrol. I agree that it is necessary to establish good cooperation between the Community and this organisation and, in fact, the technical negotiations for the Community’s membership of Eurocontrol have already been completed. As the honourable Members know very well, the signing of the official agreement on the protocol for the Community’s joining Eurocontrol is scheduled for one month’s time, simply as a result of a problem with parliamentary agreement in one of the countries of the Union.
It is not therefore necessary to specify in the Regulation the methods for technical assistance for this organisation, since we are going to be part of it. I believe that the amendments proposed in this regard relate to aspects which are already adequately covered as a result of the Community’s membership of Eurocontrol, otherwise they will have to be modified in order to bring them into line with the nature of the Community acts. The same is true of the amendments which request obligatory consultations. The Commission does not question the principle of consultation with business and social operators, but it wants this principle to be applied while respecting its right to initiative.
With regard to the nature of the air traffic services, the legislative package has been carefully worded to reconcile the demands of public interest with the need to support the dynamic of the sector. While recognising the inherent characteristics of these services, we cannot ignore their economic impact on the direct and indirect costs they imply. Therefore the Commission cannot accept, and rejects, Amendments Nos 12 and 13 of Mr Fava’s report. This is also the case with a series of amendments which I mentioned earlier, which we believe to be legally or technically incomplete and which we cannot therefore support, as well as those amendments which call for the rejection of our proposal in its entirety."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples