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.

Political group: GUE-NGL