Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 3 September 2002 - Strasbourg

2. Air navigation

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on three reports tabled on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism:

- (A5-0258/2002) by Mr Fava, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation laying down the framework for the creation of the Single European Sky [COM(2001) 123 – C5-0480/2001 – 2001/0060(COD)];

- (A5-0266/2002) by Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on:

1. the provision of Air Navigation Services in the Single European Sky [COM(2001) 564 – C5-0482/2001 – 2001/0235(COD)]

2. on the organisation and use of the airspace in the Single European Sky [COM(2001) 564 – C5-0483/2001 – 2001/0236(COD)]

3. on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network [COM(2001) 564 – C5-0484/2001 – 2001/0237(COD)];
- (A5-265/2002) by Mrs Maes, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the safety of third countries aircraft using Community airports [COM(2002) 8 – C5-0023/2002 – 2002/0014(COD)].

  De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are going to deal with a legislative package aimed at establishing the Single European Sky. The main objective of all these measures is simply to respond to the problem of congestion in European airspace without reducing its safety, but rather increasing it.

Once again we must remember that that is our main concern and priority, above all following the tragic accident of Überlingen – where regrettably a number of people were killed – and which left us with the feeling that it should have, and could have, been prevented.

Our intention is to introduce a harmonised regulatory framework which governs the management of air traffic in the European Union, thereby facilitating better management of the airspace and improving safety.

I would point out that the Single Sky was one of the initiatives that President Prodi announced during his investiture debate as a political priority for a Europe which is close to the citizens. Over these three years we have been working on this issue, and today is the day to achieve concrete results.

Turning now to the actual reports, I am firstly going to mention those by the rapporteurs, Mr Fava and Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, which recognise the strategic importance and maturity of the initiative on the Single Sky. I would like to express my satisfaction with the support the competent committee has lent by studying these proposals here in Parliament and, once again, I would like to thank the European Parliament for its cooperation and work.

With regard more specifically to the amendments, the Commission is able to accept the majority of them; some with changes of wording better suited to the text and others partially, since these amendments generally clarify and strengthen our initial proposals. However, the Commission cannot accept and must therefore reject Amendments Nos 1, 2, 13, 19, 24, 27, 29, 34, 35 and 37 to 40 of Mr Fava’s report, and Amendments Nos 3, 12, 13, 14, 26, 46, 50, 51, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 66, 75, 77 to 80 and 83 to 107 of the report by Mrs Sanders-ten Holte.

If you will allow me, I would like to make some observations on the amendments of most importance. Firstly, I am thinking above all of those which relate to relations with Eurocontrol. I agree that it is necessary to establish good cooperation between the Community and this organisation and, in fact, the technical negotiations for the Community’s membership of Eurocontrol have already been completed. As the honourable Members know very well, the signing of the official agreement on the protocol for the Community’s joining Eurocontrol is scheduled for one month’s time, simply as a result of a problem with parliamentary agreement in one of the countries of the Union.

It is not therefore necessary to specify in the Regulation the methods for technical assistance for this organisation, since we are going to be part of it. I believe that the amendments proposed in this regard relate to aspects which are already adequately covered as a result of the Community’s membership of Eurocontrol, otherwise they will have to be modified in order to bring them into line with the nature of the Community acts. The same is true of the amendments which request obligatory consultations. The Commission does not question the principle of consultation with business and social operators, but it wants this principle to be applied while respecting its right to initiative.

With regard to the nature of the air traffic services, the legislative package has been carefully worded to reconcile the demands of public interest with the need to support the dynamic of the sector. While recognising the inherent characteristics of these services, we cannot ignore their economic impact on the direct and indirect costs they imply. Therefore the Commission cannot accept, and rejects, Amendments Nos 12 and 13 of Mr Fava’s report. This is also the case with a series of amendments which I mentioned earlier, which we believe to be legally or technically incomplete and which we cannot therefore support, as well as those amendments which call for the rejection of our proposal in its entirety.

I would also like to add the following considerations on certain amendments in the report by Mrs Sanders-ten Holte. Amendment No 13, on the principle of the separation of the national monitoring authorities from the air navigation service providers affects the reasonable compromise found at the time of the negotiations within the High-level Group, where – I would remind Members – all the countries of the Union, as well as Norway and Switzerland, were represented.

I share the view that the cooperation between the civil and military sectors is a key factor for the success of the Single European Sky and, in fact, our legislative proposals are intended to create the conditions necessary to stimulate that cooperation. But Amendments Nos 57 and 59 go further than we are allowed under the current distribution of competences and therefore the first pillar. Amendments Nos 14 and 51 introduce appeal mechanisms which are already provided for within national procedures.

With regard to the report by Mrs Maes, on the safety of third-country aircraft, this proposal is intended to improve air safety through the creation of an inspection system for third-country aircraft aimed at verifying their conformity with international safety standards. The Commission had presented a proposal on this issue in 1997, which had not been able to be approved until today because of the argument over the Gibraltar airport. The proposal now presented to Parliament includes the provisions of the common position which the Council had approved previously, as well as the amendments approved by the European Parliament at second reading. The rapporteur, Mrs Maes, whom I would like to thank, has agreed to this new proposal and the Commission is satisfied with the report adopted by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism.

In fact, we are in a position to accept the majority of the 23 amendments; five of them, with regard to their principles, with a different wording, and some others also with certain textual changes.

Nevertheless, there are seven amendments which the Commission sees as problematic and I would therefore like to make the following observations: firstly, the list of shortcomings which appears in Amendment No 3 is restrictive in relation to the data available to the Commission; secondly, Amendment No 6 is not acceptable either, since the proposal for a Directive relates solely to third-country aircraft and not to aircraft of Member States of the Union. The same can be said of Amendment No 8, which would allocate new responsibilities to the European Air Safety Agency and this would require amending the Regulation establishing it, and of Amendment No 10, which is outside the scope of the proposed Directive. Amendment No 14 does not seem to us to be necessary, since the Commission’s proposal specifies that all complaints are admissible, and Amendment No 15 would give the aircraft inspection authorities considerable additional work and anyway the practical usefulness of the supplementary information requested seems to us be doubtful to say the least. Finally, Amendment No 17 is outside the scope of the inspections covered by the Directive and would contradict the principles of the Chicago Convention, and we must therefore reject it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope I have clarified the Commission’s position with regard to the various reports which are the subject of this joint debate. Nobody doubts that the reports which Parliament will approve tomorrow will contribute significantly to the safety, efficiency and punctuality of air traffic in Europe.

Once again, I would like to thank the competent committee in general for its work and the rapporteurs, Mr Fava, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte and Mrs Maes, in particular, because they have done some very commendable work on issues which are very technical and complex.

(Applause)

  Fava (PSE), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, Council representatives, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission's proposal for a regulation is a response to the report by the High Level Group on the Single European Sky. It is aimed, as we have been aware for some time, at turning the sky over the European Union, by 31 December 2004 at the latest, into an integrated airspace governed by the same principles and rules. We are also quite familiar with the priorities and principal objectives of this important regulation: firstly, to ensure better use of airspace, which means bringing down the costs, improving management with a view to reducing delays and increasing the system’s capacity, and, in particular, to significantly improving the level of safety, which is our top priority.

We are also aware that it is not enough to declare that these are our priorities, that this is a time to take decisions: the first decision which Parliament and the European institutions are called upon to take concerns precisely the handing over of a large chunk of sovereignty, and this decision requires sensitivity and determination.

There are just a few points included in our report that I would like to focus on: these, in our opinion, are the most salient points of the regulation. I would start by mentioning that a Single Sky is being achieved thanks to the unambiguous support of the European Parliament, which it had already declared in a resolution in July 2000, and thanks to the support of the governments of all the countries. The Commissioner cited – and I will mention it again – the recent agreement between the United Kingdom and Spain concerning the inclusion in the legislative act on the Single European Sky of the so-called ‘Gibraltar clause’

As I said, the regulation contains points of crucial importance. The first was mentioned by the Commissioner and concerns cooperation with Eurocontrol. This cooperation is essential. It was called for by the High Level Group and should prevent, in particular, the duplication of tasks. Reciprocal cooperation is important even though the Community is going to sign and accede to the Eurocontrol Convention in a month’s time. In our opinion, the amendments we have tabled in this respect will be superfluous after the Convention is signed. We do, however, feel that it is useful to emphasise it, particularly after the long wait we have had before our accession to Eurocontrol and the ratification of the Convention by the Member States.

Furthermore, we feel that a matter of crucial importance is cooperation between civil and military authorities. This subject is particularly delicate as it could touch on various customary practices and prerogatives which unquestionably fall within the scope of the Member States’ sovereign powers. Our report and the Commission’s regulation follow two lines: we call for very close cooperation between civil and military air navigation service providers and we consider that military authorities should be represented on the Single Sky Committee. Although no specific provision is made for this in the text, we call for one of the two seats available for each State on this committee, which will be set up and assigned the task of political and technical control of the Single Sky, to be given to a representative of the military authorities, in order to achieve greater sharing of responsibility and a higher level of cooperation between civil and military authorities.

Thirdly, penalties. The question of enforcing respect for the Single Sky rules through effective, proportionate, dissuasive penalties, as Parliament had already requested, is a sensitive issue. In our opinion, it is essential that we do this to ensure that the Single Sky becomes more than just a list of good intentions and has genuine legal certainty for all the countries of the European Union.

The last important point is that the gradual opening-up of the market, and therefore of competition, will take place within specific constraints. We must remember that air traffic control constitutes a service of general interest, as has already been established by the Judgment of the Court of Justice, and, in this respect, we call upon the Commission to emphasise especially the economic and social impact as regards employment. Amendment No 36, which we are retabling, provides for the creation of a Sectoral Dialogue Committee on all measures with social implications taken to implement this regulation. In this sense, we feel that it is an essential point.

I will conclude, Mr President, by expressing informed optimism regarding the results achieved in recent years. With the Single Sky, we are, at last, in a position to remove the borders in the sky as well as on the ground, and we are certainly taking a step towards fuller, more tangible European citizenship.

(Applause)

  Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR), rapporteur. – (NL) 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.

(Applause)

  Maes (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if safety were to be held constant at the 1996 level, this could result in a serious accident every week by 2015. It is in these terms that our explanatory documents once again underline the importance of the Commission's proposal for a directive. Safety in the aviation sector has never been so relevant. In the run-up to the momentous anniversary of 11 September, safety in aviation is of primary concern to the majority of users. This should not be the safety of our own European aircraft, but that of third-country aircraft as well. This is why this proposal that is now being raised within the framework of the proposals, that have also been expanded on by my fellow MEPs in their various reports on the open sky, is of extreme importance.

The Commission has already re-opened the procedure for issuing a directive on the safety of third-country aircraft. It is, in fact, tragic that the procedure surrounding this directive was stopped, for it was as good as completed in 1997, but was, due to a dispute that arose between Spain and Great Britain over Gibraltar, relegated to the back-burner at the time. Fortunately, we can now count on large-scale unanimity, although I regret that the matter is still being dealt with at Member-State level and that the Member States' continuing control over the procedures means that the way in which the inspections are carried out still leaves something to be desired. The need for a Community safety policy, however, is, in my view, beyond dispute.

We cannot fail to observe that the accident figures vary widely across different regions and continents across the world. Airlines based in Africa, Asia and South and Central America have accident rates at least twice as high as the world average. We in Western Europe and Australia can count our blessings with the lowest accident rates, whereas Eastern European countries have the highest accident rate, nearly 50 times higher than in Western Europe. To think that we are facing this massive EU enlargement and that, consequently, there is a greater risk of safety levels falling in our countries too.

Moreover, just as aviation users cross borders, safety should not be tied down to national borders either. Frequently occurring problems can be ascribed to inadequate primary aviation legislation, and the lack of institutional structures, qualified staff and financial resources. Recent accidents have demonstrated that an inadequate command of aviation’s official language, English, can have tragic consequences. Suffice for me to remind you of a few serious accidents, one in France and one in Italy, which were both directly the result of the fact that the aviation staff did not have a sufficient command of English, the official language.

Other shortcomings can also have major consequences. In 25% of the cases involving third-country aircraft, the flight manuals or navigation maps are missing, or the Global Positioning Systems are not sufficiently updated. Coordinated action accompanied by exchange of information that allows for early identification of possible defects in aircraft is preferable to working with national measures. In that way, Member States can fall back on the EU's common position with regard to third countries to prevent unsafe aircraft from being re-routed to airports in neighbouring Member States where such inspections are not carried out.

Specific elements in our report relate to the fact that people living in the vicinity of airports can lodge complaints about aircraft safety and that they can also obtain information about the lack of safety of some aircraft that fly into their local airports. The people of Ostend will welcome approval of this section. The Commission, however, is less than forthcoming on this score.

I should like to emphasise that there is no room for discrimination. Aircraft from the EU should be inspected according to the same strict rules as third-country aircraft. Since the events of 11 September, we must take more account of the safety of those living in the vicinity of airports and approach routes. Furthermore, and I should like to finish on this note, we need to prevent privatisations in the aviation sector, and particularly privatisations in the safety field, from undermining this very safety, because that is probably when corners will once again be cut. I hope that cutting back on safety, which became so apparent in Überlingen, will not have fatal consequences.

(Applause)

  Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – (ES) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, at the beginning of this new parliamentary session we are dealing with one of the issues which I would describe as a star issue for this legislature.

You will remember that at the end of the last parliamentary session we congratulated the Vice-President both on the work she has done in terms of rail transport and the work she has done on the Erika packages in relation to maritime safety.

Well today, at the outset, we are returning to a star issue: the attempt to create the Single Sky; the attempt to harmonise the technical standards; an increase in safety; an increase in the capacity of our airspace. Harmonising all of this with national interests. Harmonising or trying to involve the military authorities, but at the same time trying to respond to a demand of the European citizens: an increase in flight capacity and an increase in safety.

We believe that that safety can be achieved, precisely by means of harmonisation. We believe that the creation of the Single Sky will respond to the increasing demand for air safety. I therefore urge the Vice-President, with the support of this Parliament – because she knows that we support her – to take on, following the approval of the reports we are currently debating, the difficult task of trying to convince the Council to come to an agreement quickly. This is what the European citizens demand: that technical safety be increased by means of the approval of all the proposals and measures which we are debating here at the moment.

I would like to point out that the Transport Committee and, of course, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, which I represent, have been urging and pressurising the European Commission to adopt this type of measure. Unfortunately, as happened in the case of the debate on the Erika package, we are holding this debate on a dramatic anniversary in the history of the world, which is also significant in terms of the history of air travel.

Safeguarding military interests – strengthening the coordination and cooperation between civil and military authorities – increasing air safety, harmonising technical standards, creating the Single Sky committee, increasing the role of Eurocontrol through cooperation between the European Commission and Eurocontrol in the manner proposed and discussed by the Vice-President. These are the challenges and the options and direction we have to take.

I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs and the honourable Members for your efforts on this important debate. I would also like to congratulate the Vice-President and I urge her to do everything possible to achieve an agreement quickly.

  Schmitt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to preface what I have to say with a few words of gratitude addressed to both rapporteurs, Mr Fava and Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, taking as I do the view that both reports have been drafted with great care and have also demonstrated a very responsible approach to their subject-matter. Let me also say that I am grateful for their willingness, in preparation for the votes in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, to work together in seeking compromises and ways ahead, in which we largely succeeded.

I also wish to thank the Commissioner, who has indeed invested a great deal of commitment in this project, and I do believe that, without her sustained efforts, we might well not have reached the point we have come to today, of being able to complete the first reading of a project of this sort.

There is, however, something I would like to add. I was rather surprised, Commissioner, that you take such a critical view of the many amendments that Parliament has adopted, and which I have taken a quick second look at, and raise the prospect of your being unable to accept them. I do think you should take a closer look and see Parliament as the partner you will need if you are to be able to successfully and consistently put the case for this joint project of ours to the Council.

We find ourselves today talking about a situation that has long been a reality on the ground. It has, in the meantime, become the norm for goods, just as much as people, to be able to cross the borders at will, at whatever time and in whatever manner. This freedom on the ground must actually have originated in the heavens, as it seems far less problematic to set down borders in the sky than to remove them on earth. Things have turned out differently now, though, and the public, the people who fly frequently, have expectations that are all the greater and all the more pressing; it is they who are telling us to at last get on with politics and sort matters out.

It is the fact that the present position is simply unsatisfactory that prompted our desire for a Single Sky. Let me make that clearer by giving some examples. The situation in Europe today is that one out of every four flights is delayed. A proportion of the delays can be attributed to the fact that airspace is overstretched, and it is overstretched because we have this catastrophic situation with a fragmented sky. Every year, 350 000 flying hours are wasted because the direct route goes over military areas which may not be overflown, which means that aircraft have to fly by circuitous routes. We also have the situation today in which there are 41 blocks of airspace in 15 EU Member States. I always like to illustrate that by the example of an airline pilot who, on a flight from Rome to Brussels, has to fly through nine different blocks of airspace, meaning that he has to report in and out nine times. Misunderstandings are of course always possible and linguistic problems can crop up, so if anyone tries to tell me there are no additional potential hazards here, he is off beam. This makes it clear that we must make a long-overdue change here.

I see these proposals as likely to give the sky a new architecture, create functional blocks of airspace and thereby ensure that, on the one hand, we increase capacity – which the increase in air traffic makes urgently necessary – and on the other, we enhance safety by minimising potential dangers from the outset, are able to reduce costs and so make flying cheaper and, finally and particularly, that we do the environment a favour by cutting at a stroke the 350 000 unnecessary flying hours to which I have already referred.

So we have our eyes on the right objective, but I will also say that I am sure there are a number of points we could subject to critical discussion, and I know that one or other of my fellow-Members of this House has doubts about whether this or that is the right way to go ahead. In the Committee, we tried to add certain things. One I will mention is an industry consultation body, as we felt it was right that both the users and the manufacturers should be more involved in the project, to prevent us coming up with something that later proves unusable, or, on the other hand, from requirements bearing no relation to the products that come on the market. The fact is that, as well as the fragmentation represented by the 41 zones in the sky, Europe is fragmented in the field of technology. I believe that our technologies must also be modernised and harmonised as soon as possible.

Like Mr Stockmann, who tabled an amendment on the subject, I would have liked us to go a step further by creating a European supervisory authority and removing this area much more from the nation states. I know that to be, at the moment, a chimera, but my relative youth gives me hope that we will today take the plunge and take an important second step by declaring our desire for a Single European Sky, deciding on the political objective, and then going down the road the Commission has pointed out to us. Thus we may hope that, at some point in the next ten or twenty years, there really will be a Single European Sky with a European supervisory authority, which will of course safeguard national interests. So I ask you to vote for these projects by a large majority.

  Stockmann (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ‘and yet it does move’ – European air transport policy, I mean. There are obviously so many pressing problems that Spain and Great Britain have given up their decades-old blockade in the Council. That is a great step forward for Europe.

The Single Sky project has a significance in terms of European airspace comparable to that of the introduction of the euro for the European economic and monetary area. I only hope that there is just as much awareness of the problems involved and willingness to resolve them, as the devil is well known to dwell in the details. We can already see quite divergent national interests girding their loins to jeopardise the ambitious objective of making this project a reality by 2004. The reports by Mr Fava and Mrs Sanders-ten Holte show the necessary will to resolve the problems, and I hope that the House does as well.

I would also like to say something about a number of core issues that have had a part to play in the discussion and which seem to be important. I still find it hard to understand why the sharing of responsibilities between the Community and Eurocontrol has not been resolved in a truly definitive way. Things still need to be done in that area.

My second point is that the Commission was quite right to refer to cooperation between civilian and military authorities, but this does not, in my view, go far enough, since, in the final analysis, there is still an intrinsic need for their air traffic control services to be fully integrated. This area calls for more than what the Commission has proposed. I am aware that this would of course require an ongoing discussion in the institutions, one that would encompass the Common Foreign and Security Policy and not relate solely to transport policy.

Thirdly, the provision of air traffic control services calls for independent national supervisory authorities, which would, in the final analysis, need to be institutionally separate from the service providers. As my colleague has pointed out, we would prefer it if we already had a European supervisory authority, but the time for that does not yet seem to have arrived.

Fourthly, we need clear procedures for authorisation and appointments and transparent rules on charges. I would ask you, at the present time, not to let yourselves be tangled up in a discussion as to whether air traffic control requires State or private-sector service providers, or else the whole project risks being brought to a standstill, as we have seen happen with public transport. That would be harmful. It is safety that is in the foreground and has priority, along with the facilitation of integrated air traffic control services appropriate to the functional blocks of airspace.

My fifth point, which is at the heart of the whole structure, follows from that. We need the creation of functional blocks of airspace. The Commission's description of how we get there is, however, incorrect and inadequate. Here, the need to rid the skies of the small-state mentality means that there is still a need for improvement. We have 26 subsystems, 58 monitoring systems, and different equipment. That is superfluous and, as has already been said, increases the likelihood of error. Safety must be the highest priority.

Mrs Maes, your report is one that I cannot but fully support. There are scarcely any objections to it on the part of our group.

(Applause)

  Caveri (ELDR). – (IT) Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, I would like to start by saying that the debate in committee was lengthy and in-depth, and so the amendments accepted were not random but were the fruit of lengthy discussion. I too would like to thank the three rapporteurs, who have done an excellent job, and I think I can say that Parliament’s support for the Single Sky was confirmed both in the discussion in committee and in today’s debate, which have proved a constructive contribution to the creation of the Single Sky. However, if we want 2004 to remain the date for the introduction of this new airspace model, we will need, in my opinion, to pursue dialogue within the Council, particularly with those countries which are still sceptical – some of them are downright against the idea – and with the countries whose internal systems are in most need of modernisation, and here I am thinking of the problems which are clearly going to arise with enlargement, which is now imminent.

I have noticed a political theme emerging during the course of the debate: the perpetuation of the myth that the Single Sky is an attack on the sovereignty of the individual States. It was even said in committee that it is an attack on the physical sovereignty of States over their territory. I feel it is important to make it clear that this myth is completely unfounded and that it is, of course, contrary to the spirit of the Treaties, but I fear that it is even becoming an issue in high-level negotiations.

Dialogue is also necessary – as a number of Members have said – with the trade unions, which I believe are voicing the legitimate concerns of the people, particularly as regards the more sensitive points relating to the concept of public service or service of general interest, especially where controls are concerned, which is clearly a sensitive issue.

I feel we must stress, as has already been done, that liberalisation, which is absolutely essential in this sector, does not mean privatisation, that competition, although as wide as possible, must, of course, take into account the essential safety requirements. We therefore need to increase capacity to deal with the huge volume of traffic, while, as I said, increasing safety and making air traffic control less fragmented by using new technologies, not least, and resolving the still pending complex issue of integration with military systems, for I feel that this is a political matter which does need to be addressed. One of our guiding principles must be to create new airways which will prevent congestion in certain airspaces, for we are now faced with saturated routes and a huge increase in costs caused by delays and the enormous amounts of fuel consumed. I believe that the Single Sky will bring an efficient, effective system for the European citizens.

  Ainardi (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for the creation of the Single European Sky is a complex issue, one that I, personally, still find rather ambiguous. I think, however, that Mr Fava and Mrs Sanders-ten Holte have done a considerable amount of work, given the size of this report.

From the outset, in order to understand the full implications of this matter, I took the time to work with the industry. Only last Thursday, I spent the morning at the Roissy air traffic control centre and the afternoon at Athis-Mons, which is Europe’s third largest air traffic control centre after Maastricht and London. From this experience, I have come to believe that – in spite of the fact that the rapporteurs and the Commission have taken a number of points into account – what is being proposed today still presents serious dangers.

I would like to thank the RET Committee for having incorporated a series of amendments that I had proposed so that more attention is paid to safety. I also feel it is very positive to include an amendment specifying that each Member State is free to appoint a public or private entity as its operator or operators, although I do believe that air navigation services represent a service of general interest and that competition rules cannot apply to them, as the European Court of Justice has in fact ruled.

Unfortunately, even though these amendments were adopted, this has not, in my view, significantly changed the liberal undercurrents of the draft text. I shall try to explain what I mean. All the amendments proposed by my group, which clearly ruled out introducing competition in the air navigation sector, were rejected in committee. Even so, the House must still reflect on the fact that the air traffic control trade unions are united on this issue. Everyone in the industry – although there are, quite naturally, differences of opinion between the various parties – is coming to the same conclusion regarding the dangers of the current proposal. Yet, we are not talking about staff who are attached to so-called privileges and who are unable to accept change: the very job of an air-controller involves constant development and change.

The current system is far from perfect. In addition, it is already cross-border in nature. Everyone is aware that cut-off points do not, generally, begin and end at borders. There are other reasons for this apart from air traffic control. The current system of course needs to be improved, but in my view, there are other problems, particularly that of the ultimate objective. The ultimate objective should, indeed, be the priority. There is also a problem regarding method. No reform of the air traffic control system will succeed without the help of air traffic controllers who are responsible for maintaining high safety standards in Europe. In addition, it was possible to bridge the gap – a very considerable gap between the extraordinary growth in air traffic in recent years and improving traffic flow – due to the increase in air traffic controllers’ productivity, not to mention the significant investment made to upgrade equipment.

The search for standards that everyone in Europe can apply is an essential goal for the Union and, from this point of view, the European Commission can certainly play an extremely important role in providing harmonious organisation and effective control. Although the proposal for a regulation treats safety as a priority, I believe that all the proposals seeking to place the regulation on an economic basis run counter to this affirmation. Whatever forms, and they all differ considerably, are chosen by the Member States, the proposal to introduce competition in air navigation services by casting doubt upon the integrated system, including all the technical services, would be detrimental to navigation and it represents a tangible danger to safety.

It is true that there is a link between safety, capacity and costs, but to purport to establish high safety standards by taking the economic question of cost as a priority and by referring to it above all else is, at best, illusory and, at worst, misleading as to the goal of maintaining high safety standards. Obviously, the flow of air traffic and its safety are dependent on a chain, all the links of which are essential. If the chain is broken, we risk seriously compromising safety. That is why, to put it frankly, if the texts do not make significant changes on these crucial issues, I will be unable to support them in their current form.

  Collins (UEN). – Mr President, I very much welcome the proposals before us today, which are clearly designed to tackle delays caused by air traffic control problems in Europe. These delays are taking place on many flights because of the difficulties with air traffic systems in Europe. These systems need to be modernised and centralised so as to guarantee that flights are not delayed because of air traffic control deficiencies.

We have all seen surveys that show that air traffic is going to increase in the coming years. The objective of the Single European Sky proposal is to ensure that air traffic management systems are designed, managed and regulated in a harmonised way within the Union and with the highest possible level of safety.

I come from an island nation with a high dependence on air transport and improved efficiency in these transport models is extremely important to enable future economic development to take place in my country.

At present there are 73 air traffic control centres in the pan-European airspace, which all operate under different codes of classification. Air traffic management in Europe is fragmented and the current system is not able to keep pace with the demand, which results in delays in many flights. In the European Union we need to establish effective and binding regulatory arrangements to solve this problem sooner rather than later.

On a separate but not unrelated matter, a conciliation process is going to begin shortly in relation to the issue of the new EU regulation concerning the establishment of common rules in the field of civil aviation security. This conciliation process must reach an effective agreement. We need to ensure the introduction of a 100% whole baggage screening process at all airports in Europe. We must also guarantee that the necessary staff training is put in place to make these changes work.

Improved security is not a cheap exercise and one of the issues that has to be addressed at the conciliation stage is agreeing exactly who is going to foot the bill for the implementation of the new anti-terrorist security arrangements. At present the financing of anti-terrorist security measures for air transport differs from country to country and between transport models. We cannot continue to accept this situation.

  van Dam (EDD). – (NL) Mr President, airlines and passengers are facing a number of serious problems, which the combined management of the airspace above Europe should be able to resolve. Increased efficiency and handling rates should reduce delays, environmental pollution and avoidable costs to a minimum. We are confronted with a number of complications, prime among which, in my view, is the division between military airspace and civil corridors. It is up to national and military authorities to take up the challenge to end this division.

Safety should be at the forefront of our minds during the liberalisation of navigation services. Nobody benefits from lower costs that result in a higher risk for travellers and staff. This is why we endorse the emphasis which Mrs Sanders-ten Holte places on this aspect. The standards for the various services should be as uniform as possible, preferably at global level and at least at European level, where we should draw on the expertise and experience of organisations such as ICAO, Eurocontrol and soon also EASA. I would ask that special attention be given to the enforcement of these standards. In many areas, sound legislation breaks down as a result of insufficient monitoring and enforcement. An adequate draft and implementation of this inspection and enforcement also make it possible for enterprises other than strictly public ones to offer navigation services.

Finally, time, capacity and safety all require an improvement in the current situation as a matter of urgency. I hope that the Commission can keep to its ambitious time schedule, which should never be at the expense of the quality and safety of drafts, however. In our view, the rapporteurs have sufficiently called attention to this in their reports, which we can endorse accordingly.

  Berthu (NI). – (FR) Mr President, both the explosion in air traffic in recent years and the saturation of Europe’s skies mean that a number of measures to reduce congestion are needed. One of these measures should be improved regulatory coordination between the European countries.

From this perspective, the Commission’s Single Sky initiative which aims to provide a safer and more fluid airspace appears to be based on the obvious. Yet, the obvious seems much less clear, however, when you study the practical details of the project and when you realise that there is already a body that regulates air traffic, Eurocontrol, which has a great deal of technical expertise and covers a much wider territory than that of the Union, since its membership includes 31 countries of the continent.

In this respect, there is a considerable discrepancy which, in truth, the texts presented by the Commission do not mention. This discrepancy is fully evident even in Article 1 of the regulation laying down the general framework, as it is stated that the Community shall be given the means necessary in order to create the Single European Sky whilst taking into account Eurocontrol’s task in establishing a pan-European airspace. Further into the text, the issue of coordination between the Commission, which represents the Community, and Eurocontrol, does not become any clearer. This could be summed up in one sentence: who gives the orders and who is has the last say in drafting the regulation? Although the text attempts to suggest the opposite, we can only see one possible answer. It is Eurocontrol that gives the orders, which the Community must obey, alongside Member States which still have the most important role.

We feel that the majority of Member States share the same view. We must maintain Eurocontrol and its prerogatives and we must, therefore, firstly clarify the prerequisites of regulatory relations with this body. Failure to do so will risk complicating matters rather than simplifying them.

  Deva (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating Mrs Maes on a very competent and excellent report. Consideration of this subject is long overdue and I am grateful to the Commission for bringing it forward. The problem of third countries' aircraft and their safety standards has been of great concern to many people, particularly Eastern European airlines and maybe even further east than that.

The Commission's directive has sought to resolve this problem by introducing a large number of ramp inspections and inspectors to do spot-check inspections on these aircraft as they land in the European Union. That is one way to do it. There is another way we could have approached this, but I am not going to complain. I would just like to say that the way the Commission has proposed is a massive job creation programme for aeronautical engineers and technicians. I myself am an aeronautical engineer so I should not be complaining about this. But it is going to create a number of jobs at the Community airports where people will have to go and do spot-check inspections and ramp inspections.

An alternative that I might suggest for future consideration is to actually upgrade technical and maintenance facilities in third countries and give them support and aid so that they can upgrade their own technical specifications and maintenance facilities to a standard that is internationally acceptable. That is what the United States has been doing, particularly with African countries. This is good for exports and good for the United States aviation industry in that it provides a long-term opportunity to sell its goods and services. It is also a way of getting its equipment into place around the world – the Boeing-Airbus agreement, I suppose.

There are, of course, a number of issues relating to Community air transport which we need to look at. Might I be permitted to raise a very important issue for the British MEPs coming to Strasbourg? We get thrown off flights, even with fully confirmed tickets. Air France has done this repeatedly; yesterday two of my colleagues with confirmed tickets were thrown off because the flight had been overbooked. That is against international rules. It is also – and the Commissioner might wish to write to the president of Air France about this – a criminal offence for a Member of Parliament to be prevented from coming to Parliament in Britain. There is such a thing as a European arrest warrant, which we understand is now going to be put in place. I am raising these issues so that we may act before it is too late.

  Μastorakis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although I do of course agree with the basic idea, I feel that, when it comes to the question of a Single European Sky, which is a very complex issue, we should look very carefully at local parameters and anyone advocating the privatisation of air traffic control and management will need to come up with some pretty persuasive arguments. We also need to make arrangements, in conjunction with the military sector, in order to protect its decision-taking powers on defence issues and ensure that current common foreign policy and defence levels are not exceeded.

Clearly, several questions have arisen which require further clarification. For example, on the question of national sovereignty, each Member State will be required to hand over the planning and control of its airspace to a central agency and this may cause numerous Member States constitutional problems. This needs looking into. Likewise, despite the initial opinion of the Council's legal services, airspace above international waters does not appear to have been covered. For countries such as Greece, but not just Greece, this is a very serious question because, without airspace continuity, technical and institutional problems will arise and we may end up with different systems operating within a single Member State. This will complicate daily operations and thwart the very flexibility which is the whole purpose of the exercise.

Even the involvement of the military sector in this overall exercise has not been clearly safeguarded with respect to national security issues, i.e. second pillar issues. And then there is the, in our view, equally serious question of the legal basis for the proposed regulations which, by their very nature, appear to warrant more than just Article 80(2) of the Treaty, given that this is not just a transport issue.

To conclude, I feel that if the most serious of these concerns are to be entertained, the right of defence and security enshrined in national legislation must be clearly safeguarded when we introduce the Single European Sky we all want. Thank you and my especial congratulations to the Commissioner and the honourable Members for their excellent work.

  Pohjamo (ELDR). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to start by thanking the rapporteurs for their excellent work in drafting these important reports. They have taken different points of view into consideration and have achieved a balanced whole.

The aims of the regulation package before us to improve the viability of air traffic are especially welcome. The reforms are necessary to keep the costs of air traffic down, reduce the number of delays and increase capacity. As has been said here many times, it is very important to improve traffic safety. There is broad consensus on these goals.

There are whole areas in the regulation where opinions in Member States have differed. These include consideration of the military dimension, the provision of services, functional airspace blocks and relations with Eurocontrol. In taking a decision consideration must be given to the needs of national air defence. These could be ensured by means of a safeguard clause. The Member States must furthermore retain the power in the future to decide the provider from which it is to acquire air navigation services. With regard to the provision of air navigation services, the regulation proposes the possibility of establishing supranational airspace blocks. That would give national authorities a choice when procuring services.

The recent EU decision to apply for membership of Eurocontrol, the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, was a necessary one. After accession the EU will be able to use the powers of decision of Member of States in those matters in which the organisation is involved which concern all Member States. Eurocontrol’s foremost objective is specifically the improvement of traffic flow and safety. The harmonisation of air navigation systems and the control of traffic flows will contribute to this.

Improvements in air safety will also call for action in respect of the assessment of aircraft from third countries. That is discussed in the report that Mrs Maes drafted and it is important.

The different points of view that have been raised here can be reconciled in the way the rapporteurs have demonstrated. We should try and make swift progress in the debate on the legislative package so that it can be adopted some time this year.

  Markov (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, it is beyond doubt that the airspace above the European Union should be under common management if its safe use and greater quality is to be guaranteed in the form of reduced delays.

The approach taken by the rapporteurs, of involving representatives of consumer associations and of industry, as well as of Eurocontrol and of the armed forces, in the discussion in order to come to decisions on proposals for the use of the Single Sky, is one that I support. Only this combination, taking account of the experience of civilian and military operators, of suppliers, of those who provide air transport services and those who use them, can lead to decisions being made that effectively make the connection between the required safety standard, efficiency, and the interests of the workforce.

I do have doubts, though, when it comes to the technical implementation that is proposed. I can understand why service providers and regulators are to be separated, but I am opposed to the option contemplated of destroying the hitherto integrated air traffic control system by awarding individual contracts, some of them to operators in the private sector. Whilst this may well lead to more competitors becoming active in the market, I see it as bringing about the very opposite of the increased safety that is intended.

The geographical fragmentation of air traffic control services that prevails at present gives way only to fragmentation of an economic kind. In no way does this reduce the existing problems in European air transport, but rather – as demonstrated by the example of the recent crash of two aircraft over Lake Constance – new ones are added. Considerations of profitability led to cutbacks in personnel that made it possible for a situation to arise in which in fact only one pilot was actually on duty, and this made trouble-free and, above all, safe operation impossible.

Here, it is abundantly clear, the question arises of whether air traffic management's highly-sensitive safety issues might not be better taken care of by a public service, which would incorporate the advantages of the integration of the individual services into one single chain with the required quality of work, professional qualifications and the necessary material resources. Whilst the introduction of cross-border blocks of airspace represents a step towards the necessary integration of European airspace, it can only come about with the agreement of all the States concerned. When cases of uncertainty or dispute arise, it should not be possible to settle them over the heads of one or more states.

In contrast to this Commission proposal, which presupposes cross-border cooperation by regional services that are available only to a very limited extent, close collaboration between the nation states' existing public air traffic control services is very definitely conceivable and indeed realistic. In this instance, two countries would constitute a cross-border block of airspace. This complex question of how the sovereignty of states may be respected is also apparent in the Commission's thinking and reporting on improved collaboration between civil and military use of airspace.

It is not clear from these reports precisely how the closure of airspace to civil, as opposed to military, aviation can be rolled back. The current regulations can hardly be said to achieve better use of the single European airspace or greater safety. The extended interoperability of the European air traffic management network can be seen in a positive light, as integrated networks have a natural tendency to facilitate greater compatibility and contribute to the reduction of acquisition and maintenance costs.

  Queiró (UEN). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, the fact that we in this Parliament are some of the most frequent users of air transport requires us to pay special attention to all initiatives designed to improve the organisation, punctuality and safety of air traffic navigation and control services.

We are certainly not calling into question that the proposal to create a Community air regulation body, known as the 'Single European Sky', and the development of connected regulations are intended to increase the effectiveness and safety of this means of transport and to respond to the challenges of its foreseeable growth in the future.

The simple truth is that in this field there are questions that cannot go unanswered. Because I have very little speaking time, I shall only discuss the main ones. First, is Parliament aware that the legal base invoked for the four regulations, Article No 80(2) of the Treaty, might not be a sufficient basis for the measures recommended by the Commission, which will have the consequence of communitising national airspace, leaving States Members to exercise, alone, and jointly, their powers of sovereignty? Furthermore, do you realise, ladies and gentlemen, that, as a result of these regulations, the distinction between civil and military users of common airspace will become blurred? Thirdly, is it not obvious that the assumption of these new competences by the Union, to be exercised in accordance with the rules of comitology, requires the inclusion of a ground of competence which does not exist in the current Treaty, and even the definition of a common defence policy, which is still so far from being reached? Furthermore, will the introduction of economic competition mechanisms into air traffic control activities be appropriate to pursuing the objective of air traffic safety, in other words, the safety of people and goods that are transported and of communities living under flight paths, given the need to maintain the high standards of safety practiced?

Lastly, during this process, will an impartial and objective analysis have been carried out of the genuine causes of the delays European flights have been experiencing? Can these only be attributed to the shortcomings of the air traffic control system, which we are now seeking to remedy? Will due account be taken, for example, of the responsibilities of airports or of those of airlines that refuse to phase out their flights, or of meteorological reasons? In these new regulations we do not see proposals for measures designed to improve the practices of the other components of this complex system. We do not see them and, therefore, we are still concerned.

  Esclopé (EDD). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, if one reads the texts proposed by the Commission, one is led to believe that air navigation services might be subject to the Community’s economic rules, which would mean having to publish calls for tender for public services of this particular type. Yet, in its judgement of 19 January 1994, the Court of Justice stated that air navigation control is a task of the public authorities that is entirely devoid of economic character, since this activity is a service of general interest designed to protect both air transport users and the populations affected by aircraft flying overhead. One might believe, therefore, that air traffic control, flight information and alerting services exert a form of administrative police of a regal nature, and they cannot, under any circumstances, be incorporated into a market service, despite the existence of user charges. The fact that these services are covered by charges paid by the users does not, however, confer upon them the character of services that are subject to the economic rules of the Treaty.

That is why the Member States must be able to choose the procedures for organising and providing these services depending on the volume and nature of traffic that they have to manage, as well as the economic realities specific to their territory. We should also point out that air traffic services cannot be subject to the economic rules of the Treaty, nor can competition be introduced. The conflicts of interest which might arise from this would have an extremely harmful effect on the safety of air transport and, more importantly, of the general public. One of the sovereign functions of the State is to ensure the safety of its population and its territory. It is therefore the duty of the States and the States alone – which must, of course, improve harmonisation within Eurocontrol – to fulfil this duty.

  Foster (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking our rapporteurs, Mr Fava and Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, and also the shadow rapporteur, Mr Schmitt, for all their hard work on a very complex and detailed report.

However, I should like to raise a number of concerns that have not yet been addressed, in particular by the Commission. The aviation industry cannot continue to sustain the loss of USD 4 billion due to delays across Europe and I recognise that doing nothing is not an option.

Notwithstanding those remarks, as the saying goes, the devil is in the detail. The proposals before us could result in duplication of regulatory efforts and measures aimed at either Member States or at the full Eurocontrol membership that at present covers 31 countries. Even worse, there is still a real danger of damaging or destroying existing pan-European systems that function to everybody's satisfaction, solely because they need to be placed all of a sudden in an EU context. I refer in particular to the Commission proposal to recreate the Eurocontrol route charges and central flow management systems. I would also question the establishment of an industry consultation body, as this would be an unnecessary duplication of the existing system.

It is our duty to look beyond our borders and create meaningful and effective actions and measures to improve the safety, efficiency and economics of air traffic management which will not lead to a two-tier system, thereby jeopardising the current modus operandi. In addition, we cannot ignore the genuine concerns of many Member States regarding the military dimensions of Single Sky, nor the sovereignty issue.

On 6 July 2000, during our initial debate here in this House, I informed the House that 44% of delays and 30 bottlenecks were concentrated in sectors straddling north and south, including Switzerland, France, Italy, Spain and parts of Germany. I also stressed that it was inappropriate to use Eurocontrol as the scapegoat. A Single Sky will not solve all of our congestion problems if these Member States and Switzerland do not make a concerted effort to address their specific shortcomings.

Finally, both airlines and airports will also need to look closely at their practices, as they too are far too often responsible for a high percentage of the delays incurred.

This report has come a long way and, again, we must thank the rapporteurs. But we are not there yet. I hope that there will be further and better clarification once Council has met.

  Wiersma (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, this debate is not only about safety or the elimination of delays through better cooperation at European level. In my view, this debate also has an international political dimension. Cooperation is the EU's strength but also its weakness. It is useful to conclude agreements about European rules on aviation, including the use of airspace. However, the weakness lies in the way this is done: slowly and with a large number of reservations on the part of the nation states.

As is evident from Kyoto and the whole affair surrounding the International Criminal Court, we in the European Union try to emulate the United States on the international stage. The Americans often try to play us off against each other, and often, we are unable to offer any resistance. The aviation dossier is a case in point.

If you compare the European Union with the United States, it is evident how much better things are organised over there and how weak we often still are. The debate and the Fava report also show that we are still not agreed by a long shot on the use of airspace and the rules for air traffic control. This discussion is immaterial in the US, as it has one aviation authority. I therefore believe it is important, also in the light of this debate, to make swift progress and to work on a system, a set of rules, which can form the basis of one space instead of fifteen different regulations that are given a common European denominator in one way or another.

I should like to conclude with a remark about Mrs Maes' report, which is excellent. It is good that we can now finally wrap up this dossier. It has gone on for too long, partly as a result of the Gibraltar issue. There are risks involving third-country aircraft, often because these are obsolete. This creates unjustified risks, including for airports in the EU at which passengers board these planes. I welcome an inspection system, and I should like to congratulate Mrs Maes once again on her sterling report.

  Cauquil (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, introducing competition within the air navigation services will not reduce delays to flights, nor will it harmonise Europe’s skies, as the Commission claims.

Competition would, in fact, compound these difficulties, as competition hampers cooperation. Applying productivity criteria to what is merely a question of commercial profitability cannot improve the service provided to air transport users. More importantly, though, attacking the public and integrated character of air traffic control services and, therefore, breaking the safety chain that this service provides, only increases the risk. Unfortunately, the air disaster that occurred at Lake Constance in July served as a tragic reminder of this.

Air traffic controllers are quite right to reject the so-called ‘Single Sky’ project, a message reinforced during their Europe-wide strike on 19 June, and the risk that it involves.

My colleagues, Mrs Laguiller and Mrs Bordes, and I condemn the breaking up – planned by the Commission – of this public service in preparation to hand it over to private greed. The shareholders of the airlines, of the aeronautics industry and the information technology sector are already calculating the profits that they will make from the break-up. If you strip the draft text of the pretexts put forward by the Commission, the reality of this project becomes all too evident.

We therefore reject the project outright, and we shall vote against the Fava and Sanders-ten Holte reports as privatisations and the pursuit for profit are harmful and incompatible with progress, with the concern for safety, with the possible and necessary renationalisation of human activities, on land as well as in the air.

(Applause)

  Titford (EDD). – Mr President, when my colleague spoke about the Single European Sky in July 2000 he thanked the then rapporteur, Sir Robert Atkins, for providing a gift to the Eurosceptic movement in the United Kingdom. Since then, the Europhile British press, particularly the national Sunday newspaper The Observer, has made great capital over the recent tragic collision between the Swiss and the Russian airliners. One journalist even suggested that the lack of a unified system was in part responsible for the incident. However, this issue is not about controlling airspace. A unified system through Eurocontrol already exists. It has been doing the job of coordinating air movements in 30 countries, half of them outside the EU, for 42 years. The real issue is the battle as old as the Communities themselves: the battle between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism.

The Eurocontrol system is based on intergovernment control; the Single European Sky framework directive is naked supranationalism. The Community wants to bring a portion of the system under supranational control. It wants to take over relations with Eurocontrol from Member States, bringing it closer to achieving its ambition to be what Monnet described as a European government. That is the real agenda.

I remind my British colleagues particularly, therefore, that if they vote for this measure they are voting for political integration.

  Cocilovo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the Commission and congratulating it on its initiative, as other Members have done. I would also like to thank the rapporteurs and the Parliamentary bodies and congratulate them on their work on this very complex subject, with regard to which I feel it is right to apply the principle of flexibility we cite so often.

I must also thank the Commissioner and Commission Vice-President because, in this case, making a minimal, formal change to procedure, she has anticipated the line the Commission will take at the end of the debate on the amendments too. This has given us the opportunity, the subject being so complex, to specify some of the reasons for the importance we attach to the amendments and, precisely, to bring out crucial, sensitive points of the debate.

The Single Sky initiative is positive, for the reasons already mentioned by all the speakers, which I will not go over again so as not to waste time or space. The guiding principles are safety, efficiency and punctuality, to quote the Commissioner herself. For this very reason, although we have chosen not to make an explicit, isolated reference to the economic side of things in some amendments, that does not mean that we do not realise its importance but that we want to avoid playing into the hands of those who have viewed this process in a negative light right from the very beginning. We often say that we must not throw the baby out with the bath water but, in this case, there are some people who have been trying, right from the beginning, to make the bath water dirty precisely so that the baby will then be thrown out, and we would like to avoid this.

The same applies to the issue of cooperation between civil and military authorities. The solutions we are proposing will not resolve the problem but, if there is one way of ensuring that it is never resolved, it is not even to address the issue. The problem will arise again with regard to relations with Eurocontrol and respect for national sovereignty when we come to redefine functional airspaces too, and there are potential solutions which can enhance the positive work already achieved hitherto.

  Watts (PSE). – Mr President, I should also like to thank the rapporteurs for their work and remind colleagues that the real issues, the three guiding principles against which we should test these proposals, must be safety, environmental sustainability and consumer rights. The current systems of air traffic control in Europe are living on borrowed time and the tragic events this summer only go to prove that. Mrs Maes is absolutely right that in 20 to 30 years we could well be witnessing a major aviation tragedy every week unless we take action now.

The Single European Sky and the proposals for checks on non-EU aircraft are important contributions to making our skies safer. But we must also take account of the environment, particularly in this week of the Johannesburg Earth Summit. Every day millions of litres of fuel are wasted and unnecessary emissions are produced because of aviation delays and aircraft in transit across Europe's skies. A Single Sky will be a major contribution to reducing pollution, emissions and wasted fossil fuel.

Finally, let us not forget consumer rights. One in three flights in Europe is delayed. The human cost is incalculable: thousands of family holidays were ruined this summer with people kept waiting in hot and antiquated airports. Business is disrupted and delayed.

I hope that this proposal will be widely supported. I am pleased that the Commissioner is ambitious enough to say that we must see a significant breakthrough in 2004. Like Mr Fava, I remain optimistic that we will meet that deadline. It is just a pity that the Council is not here to respond to our concerns and our calls for immediate action, because the Commissioner has done her work. We have done ours. Now it is up to the Council.

  Miranda (GUE/NGL). – (PT) 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.

  Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these three reports – by Mr Fava, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte and Mrs Maes – were adopted by very large majorities in committee. Members have therefore rightly drawn attention to what the present legislative process will achieve as we move towards a Single Sky. All that, including the thanks to the Commissioner and to the rapporteurs, merits nothing but agreement.

As several Members have already said, though, ideal solutions are still a long way off. Those who are unwilling to admit that should put themselves, for a moment, in the position of the public. Our citizens take a far less rosy view of the topic of ‘flying in Europe’, above all when, as frequently happens, they are obliged to travel by air. They regard flying in Europe as safe. That is a good thing, and may it stay that way, even though, here too, there is still room for improvement. Above all, though, they regard flying as extremely expensive. For what I pay to fly from Graz, my home town, to Brussels, I could just as well fly to Los Angeles or Kuala Lumpur. Quite clearly, something is out of proportion here.

More delays are occurring. Flying at high speed as we do, we spend more time sitting around at airports, and it happens all too often that we do not fly at all. Strikes, especially just before public holidays, keep reminding us to what an extent some people, when the issue of safe air travel comes up, consider their own interests rather than the public interest alone. Looked at in that light, we should not only laud what has been achieved, but we should also, and especially, work on the basis that what we are taking the first steps to get moving today might well need further improvement, so that, setting ourselves higher standards, we may ensure greater safety in the air, and also proper transport conditions in Europe. There is still much to be done.

  Poignant (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, this proposal sums up our approach quite neatly. Our point of departure is a known problem, the delays of 1999, even though this year was exceptional due to the war in Kosovo and the changes to flight paths. When a problem arises, we quite spontaneously turn to Parliament’s favourite topic, namely competition. We will sooner or later have to build an effigy to competition. The limits of competition are reached very quickly when the safety of passengers is at stake, and these limits, which fortunately appear, for the most part, in the draft texts, are a matter of responsibility for Member States. Air-traffic controllers are, essentially, equivalent to a policeman on the side of the road, to a ship’s captain steering a vessel into port, and we can never do deals at their expense. In addition, each Member State is free to select its air navigation providers, and the regulation must provide for cases where public or private businesses concern missions of general interest. An amendment has been tabled to this effect.

Airspace is not only used by civilians but also by the military and cooperation between the two is therefore necessary. I would point out that this cooperation, for the army, falls under the intergovernmental rather than the Community pillar, and in this case, the Single Sky Committee is not answering the question. Moreover, the Fifteen are not alone; there are other countries. You told us that they are to join Eurocontrol next month and this is a positive step. We must now wait for the next developments.

There are more limits – and I shall end on this point – since control is a single entity that we cannot carve or cut up into slices. The services involved in providing control cannot be disassociated. I hope that the outcome of our vote will take into account all this information. Having said that, our fellow Members have done a good piece of work and I thank them for listening carefully to what we have said.

  Κorakas (GUE /NGL). – (EL) Mr President, there is a danger that the open skies which the proposed directive is designed to create will turn into a safety nightmare for millions of passengers. Problems in air transport, competitiveness and efficiency are being used as a cover for the total liberalisation of the market in this sector, for bumping up the profits of big business and, at the same time, for a rude assault on the safety of aircraft and on the national independence and development potential of the Member States, especially the less developed Member States and more remote areas.

And that is not all. The proposed open skies will, it is openly admitted, be used to serve the militaristic, anti-grass roots plans of the warmongers in ΝΑΤΟ and the European Union. At the same time, the very nature of the transport service will change from a service for the benefit of the people to a way of raking in profits for big business. The adverse effects of this directive will be many and varied, especially for Greece, a country with hundreds of islands, with areas which are among the least developed in the Union and with serious defence and security problems.

That is why we, the workers and consumers oppose this directive. We are fighting for nationalised airlines which meet high quality and safety standards and which are integrated into a national development programme designed to serve the people, not big business.

  Lisi (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, I, on the other hand, welcome the adoption of this raft of measures today with satisfaction, and if we have any cause for regret at all, it is that it has taken so long to achieve: we have wasted 10 years over this dispute between Spain and the United Kingdom – which was not even based on historical fact – but it cannot be helped. Today, at last, a new horizon has opened up before us.

I have to say that, in any case, a great many difficulties arose because the dossier was and still is genuinely complex, and its passage has certainly not been smooth. The effects of this complexity have been felt even today in this House, although it is clear to everybody that there are many economic, safety, environmental and consumer protection justifications for producing this package: we have seen the amount of delays, the level of air traffic congestion, the costs of this congestion and the difficulties of creating new airspaces in terms of safety. Despite the fact that we can all see that there are more than excellent reasons why we need this raft of measures, objections have been raised even today and have taken a number of different forms: the rather unusual reference to the States’ sovereignty, cooperation with the military authorities, which has suddenly become so vital – I am particularly surprised to see the far left showing such deference towards the military authorities – and the confusion between liberalisation and privatisation. These are all objections which, in my view, in actual fact conceal a certain resistance and the desire to maintain the status quo, the desire not to change, which is the exact opposite of what our citizens are demanding from us.

Commissioner, there are many areas in which Europe needs to take a step backwards rather than forwards, where it must not take over the functioning and competences of the individual States, but this is not one of them. Our citizens are demanding this initiative, and so you must press ahead resolutely and give us a Single Sky through which everyone can travel safely and without concern.

  De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, this issue demonstrates beautifully the need for something like the European Union. No Member State on its own can effectively resolve the problems of air traffic control or safety in the air. We have a Union where we not only cooperate as states but we also share our sovereignty and our law-making in the best interests of ourselves as individual Member States and the total population of the European Union. This is a good example of how we can do that effectively. That is not to say that this is a perfect proposal, but it is a good step in the right direction.

There is no doubt that we need interoperability between our air traffic control systems; we need better integration and better and more common equipment and training of staff. We need to try to restore not only the pleasure of flying but also the sense of safety that people have when they board an aircraft and go from place to place.

As Members of this Parliament we fly as part of our work; we are constantly in the air. I know that, certainly in the last number of years, the pleasure of going to an airport and boarding an aircraft has deteriorated, not only because of delays for reasons of air traffic control and lack of space, etc., but also because of delays at airports, baggage retrieval and security – it could be argued that security is necessary.

I also welcome the public service character of Eurocontrol. It is important to bear in mind that this is an issue that cannot be regulated by private enterprise. Regulation has to be maintained by having a strong public service element.

Finally, in terms of the principles I would apply to this area, safety is the first priority, environmental sustainability the second and efficiency the third. It is important to bear them in mind and we should move on with this proposal.

  Vatanen (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, Mrs de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, here once again we have been hearing all kinds of reasons why we might not be able to switch to a single European solution with regard to the use of airspace. The reasons given have often been what would appear to be concerns about safety but in fact this is all about selfishness and the fact that we want to preserve the status quo.

It is hard to imagine a more sensible and more logical project than the rational and coordinated use of European airspace, especially as its use and the number of passengers are set to increase from here on. Why should an aircraft travelling from Helsinki to Athens or from Warsaw to Dublin zigzag over Europe with the pilot having to do the same things many times over? This should be seen as just one exercise.

The result of the current practice is delays. Finnish Members of Parliament no longer fly from Helsinki to Strasbourg via Paris because the flights are always late or cancelled, or luggage goes missing. Now we fly to Frankfurt or Zurich direct and then travel by car for three hours. That is better than using European air traffic services.

This is also a very expensive system. In the United States of America, as we well know, they can operate double the number of flights for the same amount of money. Who pays the bill in society when we act inefficiently? It is always the poor. The rich can afford to look around for some alternative.

It is also vulnerable. The tragic accident that happened in Switzerland was certainly not due to the fact that the equipment there was poor or that there were not enough people on duty. We have to put this question: why must Switzerland, a small country, have its own airspace? If a modus operandi based on international borders is the right one, we ought to establish centres in Andorra, San Marino and the Vatican. Actually, the Vatican is already is a sort of heavenly air traffic control centre – a spiritual one. There they remind us that the heavens belong to us all, as something we all share.

  Vairinhos (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur and draftsmen, the need for regulation to make European airspace truly integrated is widely acknowledged. The current situation is characterised by the existence of various service provision systems, implemented by fifty or so air traffic control centres, with two dozen different management systems and 70 computer programming languages. This is absurd!

There is a genuine need to amend and regulate, bringing about the necessary harmonisation, which can also be extended to the training of air traffic controllers. I should like at this point to make an aside: I was an air traffic controller during my military service and am well aware of the difficulties caused by the lack of any coordination between airspace controlled by the military and airspace controlled by civilian authorities. The issue of regulation is of the utmost importance and, in this proposal for a package of four regulations for the Single European Sky, the need for the power and independence of Eurocontrol, one of whose main functions is that of a public service designed to ensure the safety of airspace, is, therefore, undeniable. The question inevitably arises, however, of the issue of creating functional blocks of cross-border airspace. It is also worth making crystal clear what these are and what purpose they serve. These must be created with the agreement of the countries involved; otherwise, the constitutions of some Member States would certainly be infringed.

To conclude, safety must be the primary concern of all parties involved in establishing the Single European Sky, followed by environmental and effectiveness issues.

  Jarzembowski (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, I would like to start by apologising for my absence from the beginning of the debate, having arrived in Strasbourg only this morning. All the things that have been gone through in detail should actually, I think, give us cause for rejoicing this morning, for we have come a long way, even if it took us three years to do it. The Commission said in its first speech – which was in the summer of 1999 – that a single system of air traffic control is a typically European problem, and one that we must deal with in a European way. The Vice-President then set up the high-level working party. We MEPs were not entirely happy with that, but it was the right thing to do in that she was trying to take on board the concerns of the Member States, which feared ill-founded centralisation. It was therefore right to set up the high-level working party, which submitted its report in 2000. Then, in 2001, the Commissioner set out the proposals for directives. Today, having had good debates in Committee, Parliament is to complete the First Reading stage, which means that we have come a very long way in three years and we should just rejoice in that.

Secondly, some philosophical differences remain, and that is only natural, but let us just give them some thought. I believe that there are sufficient examples to demonstrate that military and civil air traffic control can be integrated and linked up, thus becoming more effective, including in the interests of military security. This antithesis between military air traffic control and its civil counterpart is something we should overcome. For another thing, we should emphatically reiterate that we are democrats and that democracy means that it is the government, monitored by Parliament, that has to come to a decision. That is why Eurocontrol is, at the end of the day, something which we cannot get into bed with. Eurocontrol is a board of civil servants whose technical expertise and function of providing services in specific sectors we acknowledge, but it is the European Union, the Commission, that must exercise a regulatory function, and be monitored in doing so by us, as it is we who are responsible for regulations enacted by the State. Madam Vice-President, perhaps you could tell us in your response with what success the Council has met. With the high-level working party you gave the Council every opportunity, and yet it was able to conduct negotiations in parallel. Can we be certain that the Council will finalise the dossier with a Common Position by Christmas? Only if it does will we be able to achieve the objective by 2004.

  Savary (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to say that I am personally committed to implementing the Single Sky project for three reasons. The first is related to the rationalisation of capacity and everyone agrees on this point given the explosion in air traffic. The second is the introduction of safety standards of a high level, particularly prior to enlargement – and this, in my view, is a very important point. The third and final reason is the transformation of the Eurocontrol consensus into Community regulation. These three factors are of quite major importance.

This matter is difficult because it got off to a poor start, due to two initial mistakes made by the Commission, which first of all wanted to present it as a power game between the Commission and Eurocontrol and which has probably also bowed down excessively to pressure from airlines in view of the commercialisation of control services. But the Commission presented a second proposal which I believe constitutes a considerable shift, with the participation of Eurocontrol, the acknowledgement of services of general interest of air traffic control services, the character of natural monopoly and, above all, the fact that the Member States are integrated in a Single Sky and will have a say in the way the regulation works.

We also believe that there are still three questions that need to be answered. First of all, the auxiliary services are still very vague: at times, there is a restrictive conception, at others, an extensive notion of these services. I do not believe however, as shown by the unfortunate example of what was done with the railways in the United Kingdom – and we must learn lessons from this – that we must break up the chain of control by too great a degree. Radar, radio and information technology are the eyes and ears of air traffic controllers. We have, unfortunately, seen what can happen when they are lacking. This does not mean that an integrated service is infallible, but it does mean that there is probably a minimum degree that services can be integrated and perhaps even a maximum that we can preserve.

Secondly, it appears that the interaction between Eurocontrol and the European Air Safety Agency is not clear. The Agency is not mentioned in the draft texts, but it will come into being and clarification will be necessary.

Lastly, there is fierce opposition to the attribution of blocks of airspace and we must overcome this opposition. In fact, if each Member State can appoint its provider and if two Member States do not agree on the provider, nothing is said about how to resolve the issue. We shall therefore propose amendments to address this point, and hopefully they will be adopted.

  Ebner (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my great satisfaction at the fact that this debate is being held today and that we have reached this stage. I feel that thanks are due, in particular, to Commissioner de Palacio, Commission Vice-President, who is here today. This result has been achieved thanks to her perseverance and to the contribution of many others, including the European Parliament. As I said, this, for me, is reason for great satisfaction. I hope that, just as she has succeeded in overcoming such great resistance, she will also be able to overcome the resistance put up by the Council and bring the project to a successful conclusion within the set time frame.

In particular, I would like to tell you that I have called repeatedly upon the Commission in the past not to let itself be stopped in its tracks by a privileged elite such as the air traffic controllers, who, I am sad to say, are more interested in preserving their privileged conditions than making a practical contribution to the safety of the entire population of the European Union. Sadly, we have had proof in the past of the negligence and laxity of air traffic controllers, which have claimed many victims, and the fact that this is due partly to the lack of a single airspace shows how important and necessary it is to resolve the matter without delay.

  De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to thank the people responsible for the reports and all the speakers in this debate, which I have found extremely interesting.

I would like to thank Mrs Maes for her report on the control of third-country aircraft, which has received the practically unanimous support of this House, and which will lead to an increase in general safety in the European Union, safeguarding not only the situation of the aircraft of the Union but also of those of third countries, especially those of the closest countries, of Eastern Europe, which are the ones we have the closest relations with.

In relation to the other reports, by Mr Fava and Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, on the Single Sky, I would like to conclude by making a few comments:

Firstly, the ‘Single Sky’ proposal is clearly not going to put an end to all delays. But 50% of delays in the air sector are the result of problems in air traffic management, and the ‘Single Sky’ proposal is clearly going to improve the management of air traffic and is therefore going to improve on that 50% of delays.

Secondly, the intention is simply the rationalisation of airspace, harmonising rules, harmonising systems, introducing interoperability and simply creating a network – since these days everything is on a network – of air control systems in all the countries of the Union. In that way we will put an end to a compartmentalised and fragmented system, which, far from increasing safety, actually reduces it. The creation of a network, the integration of systems and offering industry greater possibilities to make technological progress will contribute to an increase in safety.

I do not want to indulge in demagoguery or take advantage of tragedies, but I would like to say one thing to you: in the case of the terrible accident that took place this summer, the German air traffic controllers realised what was going to happen, but they were not on the network, nor were they integrated with the Swiss air traffic controllers, and they had to resort to a telephone to call Swiss air traffic control and could not connect. I cannot guarantee that with the Single Sky in operation this accident would have been prevented. We do not know. What I can assure you of is that it would have been easier to prevent it. And that is what we have to bear in mind. We are not just introducing greater rationality but also greater safety, and that is the objective of this initiative.

After 2004, we must maintain that objective and – to take up what was said by Mr Jarzembowski, Mr Ripoll and certain other speakers – we must demand a rapid solution from the Council. I trust in the Danish Presidency to provide impetus for this issue, which I know is one of the priorities in the field of transport and in particular air transport.

Eurocontrol. Ladies and gentlemen, nobody intends either to duplicate the actions of Eurocontrol or to cancel it out. But we must be aware that Eurocontrol does not have the capacities offered by the Community method to carry out its activities. I would like you to be aware that all Eurocontrol does is coordinate flights a priori. When it comes to operation, when aircraft are under way, the air control operation for these flights falls to the corresponding national authorities on the basis of a generic coordination which has been carried out previously by Eurocontrol.

What we are saying is that in real time, during the actual flight, there should be this integration and harmonisation of systems which increases control. Therefore, what we are doing is increasing safety and not taking competences away from an existing body. Because that body, I insist, does not have those capacities, it does not have the Community method which means that what we agree here (Commission, Council and Parliament) becomes an obligatory rule with which the courts can demand compliance on the part of all the countries of the Union.

Privatisation. I am rather tired of repeating the same thing. I do not know if there is a lack of knowledge or a lack of trust here. Read what the text says rather than the pamphlets of certain trade unions. There is no privatisation here. Air traffic control is a natural monopoly which must be regulated. There is a Court of Justice judgement which clearly establishes that this control is outside the competition rules. It is also laid down in the Treaties that the specific carrying out of that activity and the formula adopted for carrying it out should fall to each Member State. What we are not going to do is change the Treaty by means of a Directive. Ladies and gentlemen, we should keep in mind what our limitations are. Clearly it is a natural monopoly and clearly the Court of Justice has given its opinion and nobody intends to change the status quo. On the contrary, what we are proposing is to strengthen the situation of the public service and the common Community framework for this management of air traffic control.

Civil-military. This is the most thorny and delicate element of the whole debate. There is an extremely important report of the Legal Service of the Council, which firstly confirms the suitability of the legal basis on which the Commission’s proposal is based; therefore, if any of the honourable Members have any doubt, read the report of the Legal Service of the Council which, as you well know, goes into great detail on this.

Secondly, we are looking into how we can overcome the difficulties resulting from the simple fact that the Union has limited competences; on the one hand, we cannot go beyond the competences attributed to us, and on the other, in no way is it our intention to reduce the defence capacity of any country of the European Union or to get into areas of sovereignty beyond what is laid down in the Treaties. I would therefore like Members to be aware that all of this will be carefully safeguarded and that, furthermore, the Council’s report provides a basis for clearly resolving this problem.

In this context, the question is raised of supra-territorial blocks. I would say to the honourable Members that they should look carefully at this, that there are only cross-border blocks insofar as there is an agreement between the two States of the Union. It is true that they do not exist in the event that there is divergence. In this case there is no shared block, each country controls its territorial area and that is that. I therefore believe that this premise will allow us to overcome this difficulty.

Thank you very much, Mr President, I would like once again to thank Mr Fava, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte and Mrs Maes for the magnificent work they have done on this air package which will increase safety and rationalise the air sector in the European Union.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 12 noon.