Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020903.2.2-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, despite recent, tragic events, flying remains an extremely safe form of transport. However, since the use of airspace is set to grow exponentially over the next few years, our busy airspace will be placed under enormous pressure, with all the safety risks that this entails. This is the imperative force underlying the present Single Sky proposal.
‘Safety first’ appeared to be the motto of my fellow MEPs, because 24 of the 79 amendments were adopted immediately and these all concerned safety. I hope that this sends a very clear message to the Council. For the rest, I believe that a good compromise has been reached in the Commission, and I should like to raise three points.
First of all, I should like to mention the position of air traffic controllers and their concerns surrounding privatisation. The Single Sky, the European Sky, is in my opinion certainly no privatisation via the backdoor. It remains up to the relevant Member States to determine whether air traffic management services in the new cross-border functional airspace blocks are provided by the public or the private sector. We should not be dogmatic in this respect. A high safety level and a strict regulatory framework are what matter; not whether services are provided by the public or private sector. I can nevertheless reassure my fellow MEPs, for a large number of Member States are convinced that these services must remain in the public sector. In fact, the Danish transport committee recently stated in our committee that Danish air traffic control should remain in the public sector. Furthermore, those who provide core navigation services also retain their monopoly position in the functional airspace blocks, and will certainly not be expected to compete with each other.
Another point concerns the service providers. If they enjoy a monopoly position, it is important to guarantee the independence of the regulator in each Member State so as to ensure that the safety level is applied to the letter. The message Parliament must send to the Council is that we believe that this is how things should be done in practice. This means that I am unable to support the amendments tabled by Mr Simpson on behalf of the PSE Group. This is also true of the amendments tabled by the GUE/NGL Group because these require all services in every Member Stated to be carried out by an integrated service provider, and leave no option for second-line services to be subcontracted. Such an approach would, in my view, make it impossible to reach the goal of increased efficiency whilst retaining the same safety level. Furthermore, it does not reflect the current situation in many Member States.
A second point which I should like to raise is civil-military cooperation. This cooperation is, in my view, crucial to the success of the Single Sky. However, in order to accomplish flexible use of the airspace, the military airspace users must be involved in the daily decision-making processes in the Single Sky committee. We in Parliament must guarantee that the Member States comply with this and this is why, Commissioner, my amendments go further. Without military cooperation, the Single Sky's added value is seriously affected. In this respect, I have great difficulty with Amendment No 40, because, thinking it through logically, it prohibits military involvement in the Single Sky committee.
My third and final point concerns the role and position of Eurocontrol. Commissioner, I have heard many times that everything is cut and dried, but I need to see it to believe it. Hence our amendments and our intense pressure to have these adopted. Although I can generally live with the outcome of the votes, I remain concerned about Eurocontrol's role in the decision-making process. After all, it is an intergovernmental organisation and not a legislative body, and it is beyond dispute that it possesses significant expertise. I also think that it should play a key role where technical support is concerned, but that is where its remit should end. Eurocontrol is not the panacea for all airspace management problems in Europe, and that has become evident.
The Commission has drawn valuable lessons from Eurocontrol's successes and has integrated them into the proposals, but it has also tried to address its shortcomings. If, for example, we had to make the Single Sky Charting
system entirely compatible with that of Eurocontrol, it would be impossible to develop a system of incentives. It is impossible to promote best practices in the field of air traffic flow management in this way. Moreover, Eurocontrol is not only a regulatory body but also a service provider, which means that we are creating a serious conflict of interest. This is why I have proposed Amendments Nos 81 and 82 and have asked, on behalf of my group, for a split vote on Amendment No 51, so as to establish a better balance of power between Eurocontrol and the Single Sky
decision-making process in this way.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would ask you to vote for my report today, the text of which, I hope, remains as close as possible to that of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. We have made a step forward. It is an ambitious proposal. I should like to thank my fellow MEPs for their useful contribution and particularly the staff. It was not an easy task, we have had many discussions and thus gained a clear picture of the situation, and I believe that we have struck the right balance between safety and efficiency. With Johannesburg at the back of our minds, I should like to say that the Single European Sky will also be of tremendous value for the sustainable development of our environment."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples