Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020903.2.2-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we have nothing against a Single Sky that is designed, as is proclaimed, to increase safety levels in European airspace by coordinating guidelines and actions and by harmonising rules. But this is not, objectively, the real reason for this Commission proposal. Incidentally, issues of safety or even delays do not fall within the main scope of airspace control. And, in fact, the proposal adds little in the field of safety. Some of the guidelines it contains could actually even call into question the high safety standards they claim to want to achieve: this applies to the opening up of the auxiliary service market, given the priority attached to improving results, which could lead to lower spending on staffing and equipment. This also applies to transforming geographic blocs into economic blocs that will tend to compete with one another, to the detriment of safety.
It is at other levels, however, that this proposal concerns us most, as well as some of the amendments that were introduced in the competent parliamentary Committee. I am referring specifically to the intention to transfer the definition of 'functional blocks' from the Member States to the Community sphere. Since this issue has been and still is a matter for the forum on territorial management, in accordance with the Treaties and the constitutions of some countries, specifically my own, it falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States. There is, therefore, no legal base for proposing what is being proposed, especially not in the terms adopted in the parliamentary Committee, which strengthen the Commission’s role as the authority of last instance.
In fact, this matter takes on particular importance given the involvement of the military sphere. It is, therefore, unacceptable that attempts are being made to subordinate control of military airspace and, in general, to define new 'functional blocks' in the absence of a competent decision by the Member States. We feel, therefore, that the approach with which the Council has been studying this issue recently is a sensible one.
These concerns – but also others, such as those regarding the mobility of controllers – have deserved our full attention and have led to the submission of a set of proposals for amendments, which, if adopted, could be added to other amendments that have already been adopted in Committee and which have improved some aspects of the Commission’s initial proposal. These are the idea that air traffic control services were a matter of general interest; the previously missing participation by the social partners in the process; the now accepted possibility of the use and management of air traffic control services remaining in the public sphere; and finally the commitment to improving cooperation with Eurocontrol. I repeat, however: the questions that I mentioned at the beginning are crucial to the final evaluation of this proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples