Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at this difficult time for the civil aviation sector, whose future we debated recently in this Chamber when we discussed the single European sky rules, the European Commission has proposed a new regulation on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding. The liberalisation of the air transport sector has brought numerous benefits for passengers. Competition has arrived on many routes, causing a fall in prices and a great increase in the choice of routes and destinations. In spite of this, however, consumers have valid reasons for dissatisfaction. Denied boarding and cancellation of flights provoke strong resentment, and the assistance provided during the excessive delays all too often leaves something to be desired. We in this House fly so often that many of us have experienced such inconveniences, and it is therefore very easy for us to put ourselves in the shoes of the citizens in this case and understand that new, effective legislation is needed to protect their rights across the board. Faced with the shortcomings of current legislation, the European Commission proposes to take a different approach, introducing, on the one hand, a call for volunteers, as per the effective US system, and, on the other, a dissuasive system which compels airlines to provide greater compensation to passengers for damages. In addition, protection is considerably increased, as we will see in a moment. We must not, however, lose sight of the overall context of this proposal. We have had the opportunity to pursue an extremely constructive debate in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, exploring all aspects of the question. As the Commissioner has just pointed out, overbooking, the principal cause of denied boarding, is a negligible consideration when seen against the backdrop of the annual flow of air passengers in the Community area. We cannot risk penalising the entire spectrum of travellers with a potential blanket price increase in order to provide greater protection for a very small number of passengers. We must be very careful and identify precisely the best solutions for achieving the objective without causing repercussions, bearing in mind, not least, the economic impact. In this context, Commissioner, I am afraid I must complain of the lack of statistics provided by the Commission in support of the proposal. We do need practical statistics and facts on which to base a decision, and the lack thereof has certainly made it quite difficult for me to draw up a report. I will now outline the principal points on which we have worked to produce the final document. The first is the definitions. In terms of methodology, I believe it is essential to define all the actors involved and terms used more precisely, to avoid any confusion which might affect either passengers or airlines. To this end, a number of amendments have been adopted seeking to make the provisions of Article 2 more detailed. The second point concerns tour operators. Passengers who have bought a package holiday are already more than adequately protected by Directive 90/314. The Commission’s proposal is therefore in danger of creating confusion over the reference text, to the detriment, principally, of the passengers, and it was therefore necessary to restrict the responsibility of tour operators in the context of this regulation to seats only, as we have done. Lastly, the most controversial point: the provision of compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding. The Commission’s proposal has given rise to a great deal of debate and much concern. Neither the criteria established for the definition of the new compensation amounts nor the impact assessment satisfy the members of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. As far as we are concerned, the important thing is to preserve a balance between protecting passengers and the vitality of a major economic sector such as the air transport sector. We have therefore proposed a three-category division on the basis of distance and a reduction in compensation amounts. Indeed, we must remember that we should be concentrating more on implementing the system of calls for volunteers than on compensation. In addition, I believe it is entirely inappropriate to extend the provision of compensation to excessive delays, for a number of reasons. First of all, because it is not easy to identify the cause of the delay quickly enough, and, secondly, because this would create a chain reaction. We therefore feel it is entirely appropriate to equate denied boarding with cancellation, but we feel it is inappropriate to treat excessive delays in the same way. Rather, we must ensure that a proper, systematic system of assistance in the event of delays is in operation, particularly where people with disabilities or minors are concerned, as regards both the provision of information and logistics, and we have adopted a number of amendments to this end. I would just like to say, by way of conclusion, a quick word about the amendments tabled. They show that the debate on compensation amounts between those who would like them to be higher and those who would like them to be lower is still ongoing. Certainly, at the moment, the only reaction is a certain amount of dissatisfaction regarding our proposal on the part of both airlines and consumers, and this, Commissioner, allows me to hope that, precisely because no party is satisfied, the compromise we have reached is the most balanced and most intelligent solution.

Political group: PPE-DE