Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-02-Speech-3-263"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030702.7.3-263"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank you very warmly for all your comments and speeches demonstrating the importance the honourable Members attach to this initiative, one of the most ambitious of the Prodi Commission.
In any event, I would like to thank the rapporteurs, Mr Fava and Mrs Sanders—ten Holte, once again for their work, and all the honourable Members for their speeches, and to ask you, in terms of flexibility, not to go further than the Council’s compromise, because I know that there is no room for manoeuvre there. That would endanger the whole agreement, which is very fragile, as the honourable Members are well aware, on an initiative which is absolutely necessary and urgent.
I would like to remind you that in the field of aviation we have been taking giant steps over recent years in terms of creating common areas amongst the Member States of the Union, which until now were the exclusive competence of those States. For example, in the field of air safety, through the European Air Safety Agency, which will allow us for the first time to provide a common certification of aircraft in Europe and which will allow us, amongst other things, to be able to certify the Airbus 380. For example, when we propose new safety standards in the fight against terrorism and other types of attack, which are shared and common for all the States of the Union, with reviews and controls which guarantee that these common standards are applied by everybody. And, for example, when we finally achieve a mandate for negotiation with the United States with regard to a common aviation zone between the United States and the European Union.
The latest great initiative is precisely the Single European Sky, which facilitates all the actions I referred to earlier, particularly the negotiation with the United States, and also in the field of safety and the European Air Safety Agency, but which furthermore is going to allow us to ensure in the future that this time Europe is not left behind on this issue; I am referring to the issue of the new definitions and new concepts for the management of air traffic for 2020, where clearly the possibility of having a single sky, within which we will have integrated, harmonised and common systems, means that Europe will have a critical mass with which to negotiate adequately with the United States, which by means of an equivalent initiative is carrying out work in this sector.
The STAR 21 initiative is a key initiative for the future. It is key to European air safety and technology, technological development and European industry.
Ladies and gentlemen, reference has been made to Eurocontrol. Eurocontrol is taken into account and is going to participate – we have said this since the outset. It has participated in all the meetings we have held on the Single European Sky in the high-level groups and throughout all this time, as a source of knowledge, in its capacity as a group of experts. The Commission does not intend to create an alternative system to Eurocontrol. That is not our job. But we cannot allow the Commission to legislate on the basis of decisions by a body like Eurocontrol, which is in no way a Community body, but which is an intergovernmental body which includes a series of countries which do not belong to the European Union. The honourable Members must understand that there is a fundamental institutional problem which we cannot avoid when it comes to accepting certain types of amendment. It is one thing to employ, contract and even reach agreements with Eurocontrol, so that it may act as an expert to which we refer and which provides us with certain types of information, documents and even proposals, but it is quite another to commit ourselves to legislate or act on the basis of what is said by an intergovernmental organisation containing third countries. We simply cannot do that, ladies and gentlemen.
The next issue is Amendment No 4 by Mrs Sanders—ten Holte, with regard to licences for air traffic controllers; of course I have taken it up again. We accept it – I have said this before – for the simple reason that it was in our initial proposal. It was the Council that withdrew it from its common position and the Commission is pleased to reincorporate it because we believe we have to provide common training and qualifications for all air traffic controllers at European level, although there must then be specialisation in the specific area in which they have to operate and work.
With regard to liberalisation, ladies and gentlemen, I do not know how to say this, because I have said it so many times ... We are not liberalising anything here. Where do we say that this field is going to be dealt with like telecommunications? If you can show me where we say it, I am prepared to correct it, for the simple reason that we have not said it anywhere. If we had, I would be worried, just as the honourable Members are. As one of the speakers said quite rightly a moment ago, there are competences here which belong to the public sector, to police activity, and there clearly cannot be more than two operators because that would create an undesirable situation. There will therefore be neither liberalisation nor competition. It is different when it comes to using certain services such as, for example, weather forecasts, when it will be possible to refer to the national meteorological centre of the country in question or the meteorological centre of another State or whoever provides the most suitable data. That is another issue. But when it comes to traffic and air control, none of this is being proposed: neither liberalisation, which makes no sense, nor privatisation. By the way, it is true that one State has carried out privatisation unilaterally, in a very particular manner.
I will end by referring to the two problems which I believe will be the crux of the debate in conciliation. Mr Jarzembowski asked me to be courageous and some people have said that in the end we in the Commission have been timid. Well, ladies and gentlemen, you are well aware that this issue has been promoted from the outset with all the necessary courage, strength and rigour on the part of the Commission. But we are talking about a question of possibilities, realities and urgent issues in a complicated area in relation to which we are all aware that the first pillar is one thing and that defence aspects are quite another, since we have no capacity to intervene in them. I believe that the Council's compromise – and some of the honourable Members have said this – with regard to flexibility in terms of civil and military use, is a very acceptable compromise. It is very possible that in the future this compromise and this formulation will evolve. I am sure of this, ladies and gentlemen, but this is the first step. Let us remember that we are moving forward, that this is the first step and that a change is taking place which I would go as far as to say is almost revolutionary. I would therefore ask the honourable Members not to approve the amendments which mean changing the Council's compromise on the civil and military use of airspace. It is a very delicate compromise and to break it would create serious problems, as Mr Watts said a moment ago.
With regard to the functional blocks, I understand what the honourable Members are saying. I believe that the two problems can be combined here: the guarantee to the States that they will preserve their competences and capacities, with the concern for the coherence of the whole global concept. I believe that if the Council shows itself to be flexible there is a margin within which we could work. It is clearly the States which must reach agreement, but by means of the group which is working with the Commission, coherence will be given to the whole issue and all the blocks proposed. In this regard, some of your amendments perhaps facilitate this approach and I hope that in this way we can move forward."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples