Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-12-11-Speech-2-481-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121211.31.2-481-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to begin by saying thank you very much to all of our rapporteurs, who have done a sterling job.
I would like to conclude by saying that there are other issues, and of course I have been interrupted and lost time, but we spent nine months on this package and most people do not like most of the conclusions, albeit for different reasons. These are serious issues; we are global traders, and we must make sure we are not bogged down by EU rules which disadvantage our businesses and our supply chains. For those reasons, we shall also not be supporting the report on slots and noise at this stage.
I would like to begin by commenting on the groundhandling report and by saying that we, as British Conservatives, have historically supported liberalisation. Our experience of multihandling in the UK has been successful for many years. I do not believe that we should be frightened of competition. But notwithstanding this, there are clearly issues which affect some of our colleagues here today. So it is not for that reason that we will not be supporting this report. There are other areas of concern which I would like to outline.
Firstly, no one would disagree that high standards are imperative for any commercial company operating at an airport. However, we are now faced with an indeterminate list of minimum quality requirements running over pages. These are overly prescriptive and the majority are unnecessary, leading to increased avoidable cost.
Secondly, it involves the input of the ‘unemployment committee’, as I call it, and the requirements for contractors under this regulation. When a contractor replaces a company at an airport, it is required to employ the staff of the previous company. What the new company is supposed to do with its own employees, I have no idea.
Which brings me to the slots report – and with my ECR hat on: I went through this ten years ago, and I have to say on this occasion it has not really been any easier. I repeatedly asked the Commission for evidence showing where there is abuse in the slot allocation system under the current legislation, but I am still waiting.
Firstly, none of us needs a PhD to understand that there is a shortage of airport capacity across Europe. But we do not need a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We need to build runways. In the UK we have had a sophisticated market in secondary trading of slot-allocated airports at Heathrow for many years, which has worked well. So the answer regarding what to do with the proceeds of the 1% of slots which are traded financially is not to donate them to either airports or governments. A slot is merely a traded commodity, the value of which is shown on company accounts.
In addition, I do not think any of us oppose reviewing local rules, not least if all parties agree that there may be occasions where they could be adjusted, provided that it is left to the slot coordinators and regulators to decide which is the best approach.
Finally, in my view the current 80/20 rule is absolutely fine. Our structures for ‘use it or lose it’ have weathered well in extreme circumstances, and I see no reason to change this. I also believe it is just easier to leave the slots series length alone.
This brings me, finally, to the noise report: Noise has always been a subsidiarity issue with local input, and we are now extremely concerned that this has been moved from a directive to an overly-prescriptive regulation. I have put forward an amendment to reflect this. It is important to point out that all European-registered carriers and those coming into Europe already comply with the ICAO balanced approach and CAPE standards. One of our key concerns is the interpretation of marginally compliant aircraft, which I believe should not be played around with."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples