Reducing air traffic delays - Government response to supplementary report

Print Print page   Download PDF PDF image

Introduction

This paper sets out the Government's response to the Supplementary Report by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, dated 15 January 2002. This report followed the Committee's report into civil and military management of airspace in Europe published on 8 May 2001. The Government welcomes this supplementary report and the Committee's continuing consideration of this important aspect of the European Air Traffic Management (ATM) system, and particularly in the context of the European Commission's Single Sky initiative.

The Government's response incorporates material provided by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR), the Ministry of Defence, and our statutory advisors on ATM matters, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), and deals with the specific recommendations in the supplementary report.

Since the publication of the Committee's first report, the tragic events in the United States of America on 11 September last year have had a marked effect on the world aviation industry that could not have been foreseen at the time of the first report. Europe, for example, has seen the level of its air traffic reduce by around 7%, although there are signs that the industry is beginning to recover with the low-cost carriers pursuing their expansion plans. On the political side, there have been significant developments in the European Commission's Single Sky initiative. The Government therefore welcomes this further opportunity to set out its position on the important issue of the civil and military management of airspace in Europe.

[The Committee's recommendations are addressed in the order they appear in the supplementary report with the relevant paragraph number given at the end of each recommendation.]

Recommendations and responses

1. We recommend that the consequences of the Single Sky Proposals for the future of EUROCONTROL be spelt out.

The Government agrees with the Committee's view that it is essential for the relationship between EUROCONTROL and the European Community to be based on clear complementary roles that avoid duplication and foster synergies between the two organisations.

Now that the European Commission has released the Single Sky proposals it is possible to envisage what EUROCONTROL's likely role will be. It is clear that the intention is for the Single Sky Committee which is to be established under the proposals to rely on EUROCONTROL's technical expertise in the development of its rules for the European ATM system. Once the Single Sky Committee has agreed these rules they will be implemented within the European Union using the Community's legal instruments. At the same time, the intention is for these Community rules to be reflected into EUROCONTROL rules and therefore to be promulgated across the wider EUROCONTROL membership. Moreover, the Single Sky Committee will use the EUROCONTROL Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ENPRM) process as a further means of consulting and ascertaining stakeholder views prior to the final rule definition.

The Single Sky Committee would also seek to transpose some existing and future EUROCONTROL rules into Community legislation. For example, there is a clear intent for the EUROCONTROL's Safety Regulation Requirements (ESARRs) to be made binding in Community member states. In this way, Single Sky would complement rather than duplicate the work of EUROCONTROL to the mutual benefit of both organisations.

EUROCONTROL's own organisational structure is likely to be affected in time by Single Sky. There will be a stronger emphasis on EUROCONTROL acting as the technical support to regulation and carrying out its regulatory activities in the pan-European dimension. At the same time, there are likely to be moves to introduce significant changes to its service provision functions, for example the Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre, the Central Flow Management Unit and the Central Office for Route Charges. It is not certain what form these changes to EUROCONTROL's service provision functions might take, but possibilities include: alterations to their operations while retaining inclusion within the EUROCONTROL organisation; complete separation from EUROCONTROL and foundation as independent entities; or being subsumed within European Community institutions.

The Government agrees with the Committee that there are potential conflicts of interest if EUROCONTROL acts as both regulator and service provider. The Government is very aware of this and, as we indicated in our response to the Committee's first report, we are keen to see further progress in this area quickly. We are therefore working with like-minded states to achieve the objective of full institutional separation within EUROCONTROL.

2. We recommend that there should be further work between the Commission, EU Member States and EUROCONTROL to clarify the relationship between the Single Sky proposals and the non-EU members of EUROCONTROL.

As the Government has discussed in the answer to Recommendation 1 above, there is now increased clarity in the relationship between the Commission, EU Member States and the non-EU Member States of EUROCONTROL.

The Government agrees with the Committee that it is vital for all EUROCONTROL's Member States to be involved in the Single Sky programme. This will be achieved in three ways: first by promulgating Single Sky rules through the EUROCONTROL organisation as discussed above; secondly, by the participation of non-Community states in the Single Sky Committee as envisaged by the legislative proposals; and thirdly, through the process of EU enlargement. The Commission has noted that by the time Single Sky is implemented the next wave of EU enlargement should have taken place. As the process of enlargement is a continuing dynamic, the number of non-EU Member States of EUROCONTROL should in time reduce, and this should therefore become less of an issue in the future.

The primary problems in the European ATM system are in the core area of north-western Europe, most of which is already in the EU. Therefore, whilst it is important for Single Sky to engage the non-EU Member States in Europe for harmonisation and co-ordination purposes, the main focus of activity will concentrate, we understand, on the intensively-used airspace in north-west Europe.

3. We recommend that the Government make clear its position on how to accommodate military interests, including the principles of Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA), within the proposed regulations. We also recommend that the Government think again about the extent to which the First Pillar might be used for joint civil/military co-operation.

The Government notes the Committee's view that, wherever possible, civil/military concerns in the field of European ATM should be taken forward under the Single Sky proposals within the Community's legal process. The Government agrees with the Committee that the current Single Sky proposals will encompass military interests.

The Government in its response to the Committee's first report, set out our position on how we consider it best to achieve closer civil/military co-ordination and harmonisation. The Government continues to support the need for Pillar 1 to be used for civil regulation. However, as we pointed out in our response to the first report we do not believe that military ATM interests should be covered under Pillar 1, but rather by separate international treaty arrangements. This remains the Government's view.

As the Committee has noted, we favour including the principles of FUA in the text of the Single Sky legislation, subject to further consideration of the legal implications, and we welcome the Committee's support for this approach. The Government considers that by this means, the pace of implementation of these principles will be increased in those European states that have hitherto been reluctant to make the necessary changes quickly.

Single Sky goes much wider than FUA-relevant issues. It embraces, for example, the authorisation of service providers, controller licensing and route charges. It is the Government's view that these are areas where military air navigation service providers should not be regulated under Pillar 1 instruments. We consider that these are matters for sovereign states to determine themselves. We also note that the Commission has yet to convince EU Member States that it has an appropriate legal basis for placing military interests within Pillar 1.

The Government notes the Committee's recommendation that further consideration should be given to the extent to which civil/military co-operation can be maximised under the first Pillar. The negotiations on the Single Sky text have just begun and it is clear that these will be time consuming. At present, there is no consensus across member states as to whether the military should be covered under Pillar 1, Pillar 2 or other mechanisms. The Government is therefore continuing to pursue our favoured option of intergovernmental treaties for securing more effective civil/military co-operation. However, should member states form a consensus view on a particular way forward, other than our favoured approach, the Government will consider this seriously and we will take into account the Committee's recommendation when determining what the Government's policy should be.

4. We recommend that urgent attention be given to the institutional arrangements outside the First Pillar of the Union to provide:

  • a continuing forum for civil/military liaison
  • a mechanism whereby sensitive military issues affecting ATM could be taken forward; and
  • a means of involving the military/civil interests for the States outside the EU

The Government agrees with the Committee that whatever the arrangements for involving the military in the Single Sky Committee there need to be other fora in which civil/military ATM matters can be discussed. The Government considers that this can be achieved in a number of ways: through EUROCONTROL's Civil/Military Interface Committee (CMIC); EUROCONTROL's Military Harmonisation Group (MILHAG); the Single Sky Committee itself; and NATO. The extent of each body's involvement will depend upon a number of issues, most notably, how military interests are to be addressed in relation to Single Sky and the need to safeguard military operations.

Civil/military arrangements within the UK have recently been reviewed and are set and secured in the Transport Act 2000. The CAA has, for example, the obligation to facilitate civil/military arrangements on airspace matters, and we expect it to continue to play a role in Single Sky's development as it has in the implementation of the Flexible Use of Airspace concept.

5. We recommend that the Government seek to ensure that the proposed Community Legislation be drawn up flexibly enough so as not to endanger the Single Sky timetable because some states have difficulties with the Commission's envisaged clear separation of regulatory and executive functions for ATM within member states.

The Government notes the Committee's view that the Single Sky timetable could be endangered if the rules are prescribed too rigidly and do not take account of the fact that some states would be more affected than the UK by the need to separate service provision from regulatory functions.

The Government agrees with the Committee's view and will keep it in mind during the negotiations on the Single Sky legislation when concerns about separation are raised by other member states.