Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-10-Speech-2-430"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070710.58.2-430"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank all the speakers and I am pleased about most of the amendments proposed. These amendments usefully clarify several points, especially concerning the economic and financial monitoring of companies or again the issues about leasing of aircraft.
I want also to respond to Mr Stockmann and Mr Kohliček concerning the issue of wet leasing. It is necessary to allow relative flexibility to meet exceptional needs while laying down strict conditions for safety and frequency. I am in favour of a system that makes it possible to reconcile safety requirements with the need for recourse to wet leasing in exceptional circumstances and for a limited period.
Finally, for reasons of fair competition with third countries, I consider it is justified to compensate for the removal of Article 23 on price leadership by the possibility of imposing restrictions, when a third country with which an agreement has been signed does not recognise the same duties. It is a principle of good sense which should help us in the negotiations with third countries. I thank Parliament also for having supported the Commission’s approach concerning relations with third countries, which must be conducted in a coordinated fashion. There too, I shall still need the support of Parliament, Mr President, for the next stages.
I do not pretend to have answered all the questions. I say again, quite simply, that Parliament’s work has improved our text. Therefore, Mr Degutis, Mr Costa, it is really with much satisfaction that I thank Parliament for its work; the questions that you have raised are also very sound. I observed that, for some of them, it was not necessarily in this text that an answer needed to be provided. On the social level, I pointed out that we are in the process of working, and that by the end of the year, I would have a better idea for a possible proposal.
Mr President, I felt it was necessary to provide rather detailed answers in order to close a debate of high quality.
The Commission can accept the following amendments: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 37, 38, 39, 43, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56.
The Commission can accept in principle the following amendments: 1, 8, 10, 12, 20, 23, 31, 32, 36, 44 and 49.
The Commission can accept in part the following amendments: 33, 45 and 47.
The Commission cannot accept the following amendments: 2, 15, 16, 17, 25, 35, 40, 41, 42, 46, 48, 50, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61.
I fully support the proposed improvements concerning the principal place of business in order to ensure effective monitoring of companies for which a national authority has responsibility. The Commission also agrees with your proposals in relation to the conditions for granting or revoking licences, even if we cannot accept that this action could be taken on the basis of suspicion alone. The simplifications regarding public service obligations and coordination of airports will allow a more flexible and effective implementation of these measures.
Moreover, although the Commission can support the major part of the amendments without any problem, I am going nonetheless to tell you about some reservations. I can understand and support the need to find solutions for passengers who are stranded when an airline goes bankrupt. Mrs Ayala referred to that. It is, indeed, such situations that have led to this updating of the regulation, which seeks to strengthen the conditions for granting licences and the economic and financial monitoring of companies. I cannot, however, at this stage, accept a new obligation whose feasibility and scope in economic and financial terms we have not yet analysed. That is why, in my opinion, we should make reference to the need to make provision for conditions for reimbursement and repatriation, without, for all that, deciding on a solution the real impact of which we do not really know yet.
My second reservation concerns the social dimension. It is of the utmost importance that national authorities correctly apply the appropriate national and European legislation. It is a good thing to remind Member States of these obligations, which are laid down by the Treaty and by national legislation, but this sectoral regulation does not seem the most appropriate to deal with this matter. We must look more closely at this subject in order to grasp all the implications and to define the real needs that call for a response at Community level. Also, the proposal made by your rapporteur seems to me right, that is, to make reference to the obligations of Member States in a recital.
Furthermore, I wish to answer, of course, those who asked me about the proposal. Yes, the Commission is carrying out a study on the effects of the internal aviation market on employment and working conditions. This study, which will be finished at the end of 2007, will give us food for thought and enable us to decide what practical measures to take.
As Mr Jarzembowski has mentioned, the Commission is hesitating in relation to the obligations that are too specific for the distribution of traffic between airports. It is legitimate to require reasonable and effective connection times with city centres. Is it not, however, going too far if we insist on a fixed time, as well as an obligation for there to be links between airports?
I come to the problem of prices. The provisions on transparency of prices and full information for passengers are necessary, but they must be feasible and intelligible. Your rapporteur is right to wish to cover all flights leaving from an airport in the European Community. However, the extension of this obligation to only the Community companies in third countries gives rise to serious legal and commercial difficulties.
I should like to respond to the question of costs linked with security. It is true that the Commission is in favour of the cost of security and the portion of the price resulting from it being known. Moreover, it also wants the various costs, charges, taxes and surcharges to be clearly shown. However, if it is true that this regulation seeks to ensure information for passengers, we cannot use it to lay down the use and characteristics of each charge or tax; provisions of this kind will have their place in the directive on airport charges under discussion in our institutions.
Mrs Jeggle, with regard to advertising on the Internet, I agree with you, but Amendment 48 seems to us very complicated. It really needs to be clear and practical."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Degutis report (A6-0178/2007 ) A6-0178/2007"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples