Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-13-Speech-2-353"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070313.25.2-353"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I would like once again to give my warmest thanks to Mr Leichtfried and the Committee on Transport and Tourism for having supported and enhanced the Commission’s proposal. The amendments proposed by your rapporteur reinforce the Commission’s objectives in the interests of aviation safety in Europe.
I should like, Madam President, while apologising for, no doubt, failing to reply to all the questions asked, to say how grateful I am to the European Parliament for helping us in this way to gradually provide the European Union with legislation for monitoring the safety of aircraft, of air transport, which, in my opinion, will be one of the most effective in the world. We want a European sky that is safe; it is very important for our fellow citizens who will be called upon more and more to use air transport and who, of course, demand proper protection against all safety risks.
I thank you and again I thank the whole of Parliament for its valuable contributions.
The Commission accepts, therefore, 14 of these amendments, which contribute to this objective. In particular I shall mention the two amendments whose purpose is to allow for the benefit and mutual recognition of the certificates to be automatically withdrawn in the event of failure to respect the common rules. I shall also mention the amendment aimed at obliging the European Aviation Safety Agency to communicate to the Commission all information relevant to the updating of the black list. I also noticed that, in your supplementary amendments, Parliament asks for the inclusion of a reference to the medical certificate in Article 6b, paragraph 4. I would like to indicate my agreement with this proposal because it reflects the Commission’s initial proposal. I am referring to Amendment 34 from Mrs Ticău.
On the other hand, I think that 15 of the amendments proposed by your rapporteur are not acceptable as they are and deserve to be debated again. Mr Leichtfried and Mr Evans, your Amendment 17 aims to allow the Agency to impose fines, but this amendment does not seem acceptable to us as it stands. I quite understand the interest in imposing fines in the event of very minor breaches and it is true that the tools currently available to the Agency may, in this respect, seem out of proportion. This proposal for an amendment, however interesting it may be, raises a great number of legal, institutional and practical questions. In order to comment on these important and complex questions, the Commission needs to study them carefully. Indeed, we need to be sure that the legislation that would be put in place complies with the Treaty. In the meantime, as you will understand, the Commission cannot accept this amendment although it agrees that it is of interest.
Mr Leichtfried and Mr Evans, it is difficult for us to accept Amendment 27 which seeks to finance part of the certification process by means of Community subsidy. In 2007, these processes will amount to EUR 9 million. That is an expense that grows rapidly by about 5% a year, without inflation, and which cannot therefore be funded within the scope of the current financial perspectives. Furthermore, this amendment would result in charging taxpayers instead of the businessmen who receive or have received benefits in terms of marketing the products concerned.
Several amendments, specifically Amendments 30, 31 and 33, have also just been tabled concerning EU-OPS. As you know, this has been the subject of long and heated debates which finally resulted, last year, in a compromise that was broadly accepted by the three institutions. This compromise Regulation (CE) No 1899/2006 makes provision for its own development. I do not think it is reasonable right now to try to call it into question. I shall ask, therefore, for you to confine yourselves to the amendment voted for in the Committee on Transport and Tourism as well as Amendment 34, which I can support. There, then, are a few points that deserve still to be debated, and which also call for some further information.
Of course, Mr Janowski, the Commission is always seeking the agreement of Member States and of the European Parliament in order to be able to contribute to international organisations on behalf of the Community. I thank the European Parliament for its support. Unfortunately, the Member States have not quite reached the point of understanding the importance of the presence of the Commission and of the Union within international institutions such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
Mr Remek raised the problem of light aircraft, which also operate commercially and can reach high speeds. They fly in the same airspace as other planes. It is appropriate for them to be subject to safety rules, although lighter ones, of course.
Another question, which I have already answered, concerns the Agency’s capacity to carry out these new competences. It may be said that the Agency has the material and human resources necessary to fulfil these tasks. At the end of 2006, that is scarcely four years after it was set up, it had a staff of 280 agents and in the financial statement attached to the proposal before you, provision is made for 330 agents at the end of 2007. That being so, it is true that the Agency’s financial resources pose a problem as, of course, it has to be funded partly by subsidies but also by the fees paid by airline operators who are applying for certification for their aircraft. It is a difficult problem, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, and we shall certainly have the opportunity to return to it because, there too we shall have to find a budget that can remain fairly constant. I shall speak about it again with the Committee on Transport and Tourism.
Mrs De Veyrac reminded us of all the advances that we have made and in which Parliament has really distinguished itself. Does that mean though that this legislation would make the black list redundant? No, because the black list is a repressive tool whose aim is to ban bad carriers from European skies. Prior authorisation to operate in the Community granted to third-country transporters will be a preventive tool intended to guarantee that only companies with an appropriate safety level will be able to fly into the Community. These two pieces of legislation are complementary and one can imagine that one day, indeed, as a result of prevention, repression will lose its usefulness. We are not there yet, but I am just expressing a wish."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples