Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-02-Speech-3-254"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030702.7.3-254"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, after the first reading in Parliament, the Council’s common position is, in my opinion, an important stage in the construction of a Community policy for air navigation. Although the approach that prevailed in the Council bears the stamp of realism in a number of areas, I regret that it did not attack certain provisions more. I will come back to this.
Having said this, the common position incorporates a large proportion of the amendments proposed by Parliament at first reading. I regret, nevertheless that the Council, like Parliament at first reading stage, was cautious about certain demands that I regard as sensible. I thus find it regrettable that my group’s proposal to double the control apparatus to ensure that operations continue if there is any failure, and the proposal to evaluate the correct implementation of the Directive, were not retained.
I have met with the operators and worked a great deal with the unions on this matter. There are those employed in the sector who are already working in the European and world airspace and are determined to move Europe forward, and I think that we should listen to them. Hearing them means really involving them and not only consulting them. Europe will be made using people from different sectors and will require their active participation; I do not think that there is any future without them.
To conclude, I regret nevertheless that the approach remains focused, on the whole, on the ideological premise that liberalisation brings efficiency, including in terms of safety, something that remains to be seen.
The requirement for a separation of functions between service providers and the national monitoring authorities is, like the requirement for certification of service providers, a structuring measure. If it is about affirming the desire to distinguish the role of the operator and that of the regulator and increase transparency, the requirement should take into account the real situations that show that different concepts can also work. In any case, I think it is reasonable for each Member State to retain the choice of how things operate in their countries. I regret that it has not been clearly recognised that the management of air navigation security was part of a chain of actions and services that needed an overall, rather than a divided approach. I am even more convinced of this approach after spending two days last week at the annual conference of the ‘air navigation’ group of the ETF unions.
I am happy to talk about dividing up, but I think that we also need to talk about the human factor. We can always reduce the staff in control centres, but it is not acceptable for one section of airspace to be managed by only one or two controllers: there are also human limits.
At the same time, in terms of airspace, progress has been made in that a single European flight information area in the upper airspace has been created and in that the Commission has produced a common publication on aeronautical information in that area; these are established facts. Harmonisation would also be ensured for pricing of services.
Regarding the organisation of airspace and service provision, everyone agrees that safety requires anticipation, research and agreement between States and the service providers concerned. The changes made to the initial text particularly concern recognising the sovereignty of the States over the airspace above them and pointing out the responsibilities of those States towards the ICAO. The Council thus reached the conclusion that the functional blocks of airspace, which have been the subject of many debates, will be established by the States concerned. Is this good or bad? I think that it is a process.
It is also a question of recognising the fact that air control requires that prerogatives of the public powers be exercised and that it should not be of an economic nature justifying the application of the competition rules in the Treaty.
In this way, it is the States that decide whether or not to give financial incentives to their service providers or users through taxes; this is the approach that I, personally, prefer.
What matters, then, is that we recognise the central role that Eurocontrol must play in preparing measures delegated to the Commission, which are part of the responsibilities of that organisation; in my opinion, this is a step forward.
Finally there is the recognition of the exclusive competence of the States in determining their defence operations, including processing them, which, I agree with you Commissioner, is not desirable. I would lean more towards putting civil before military in peacetime, which is undoubtedly the situation today."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples