21 Licensing of air traffic controllers
| (25830)
11484/04
COM(04) 473
| Draft Directive on a Community air traffic controller licence
|
| Legal base | Article 80(2); co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 21 December 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xxxv (2003-04), para 1 (3 November 2004)
|
| Discussed in Council | 9-10 December 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
21.1 The Air Navigation Order 2000 lays down arrangements for
licensing of air traffic controllers in the UK. It deals with
controller training and competence standards and licence ratings
and endorsements and is based on the relevant requirements of
Eurocontrol (European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation)
Safety Regulatory Requirement Number 5 (ESARR5).
The document
21.2 This draft Directive would introduce a common licence for
air traffic controllers in the Community by requiring the adoption
by Member States of the relevant provisions of ESARR5. In particular,
controller training and competence standards and controller-licence
ratings and endorsements would be standardised. It would complement
the Regulations implementing the European Single Sky, particularly
the Air Navigation Service Regulation.
21.3 The draft Directive would require mutual recognition
of Member States' licences. Additionally, as well as transposing
the controller requirements of the ESARR5, the draft Directive
would impose requirements in respect of the certification of controller
training organisations and has an ambiguous measure applying its
provisions to military air traffic controllers. The only substantive
difference which the draft Directive would require in the current
UK licence would be the addition of an endorsement covering language
proficiency.
21.4 When we considered the draft Directive in November
2004, we noted the Government's general support for this measure
as a means of ensuring proper application of the Eurocontrol requirements
throughout the Community. We noted also the Government's confidence
that any provision in relation to military air traffic controllers
would be merely permissive and that negotiations relating to several
issues, including difficulties over linguistic requirements and,
importantly, mutual recognition, were continuing. We said that
before considering this proposal further we wanted to hear from
the Government about progress on the outstanding issues.
The Minister's letter
21.5 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Transport (Charlotte Atkins) now tells us that
negotiations have resulted in a number of improvements to the
text of the draft directive and that a general approach on the
proposal was agreed at the Transport Council of 9-10 December
2004. She says that, as she had told us previously, "the
UK was confident that the scope of the Directive should apply
only to civil rather than military controllers. Despite some attempts
by other Member States to the contrary, we have managed to ensure
that the proposed Directive does not place any legally enforceable
requirements on our military authorities, and we will continue
to ensure that this remains the case as the negotiations continue".
21.6 The Minister says also:
"The text on which a general approach
was reached at Council has a number of other changes including:
— a much improved section on mutual
recognition of licences. We have managed to secure a clearer and
more practicable mechanism for mutual recognition which includes
the ability for the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to suspend
a rating issued by another Member State. This was an important
gain for the UK since it provides the CAA with greater confidence
to accept a licence issued in another State in the knowledge that
enforcement action, if required, can be taken quickly against
a controller working in the UK with a licence issued abroad;
— changes to the linguistic requirements
of controllers. Whilst English is recognised as the international
language for controllers, some Member States were keen to ensure
that they retained the ability to set local language requirements
for their controllers. The intention is that Member States will
be given the opportunity to set local language requirements where
there is an operational requirement to do so. Clearly, aerodrome-based
controllers may require some competence in the local language
in case of needing to speak to the emergency services, but this
is not the case with controllers handling en-route traffic. The
UK, which will also benefit from the ability to set a local language
requirement higher than usually needed for English, was content
to allow local language requirements in order to secure progress
on this Directive. Whilst there is a risk that local language
requirements will be used as a means of preventing the mobility
of controllers, we understand that the Commission will scrutinise
developments closely to minimise this risk; and
— a provision for flexibility on
controller age and on educational requirements, which we are keen
to keep. We have also been successful in ensuring that the maximum
validity period of ratings (four years) will not make it difficult
for female controllers to return to work after a period of maternity
leave or for controllers to switch between operational and non-operational
jobs in the course of their careers."
21.7 Finally the Minister tells that the European
Parliament is to consider the draft Directive in March 2005.
Conclusion
21.8 We are grateful to the Minister for her account
of the improvements to this proposal which have been secured.
We have no further questions and clear the document.
|
