13 CIVIL AVIATION POLICY
(a)
(26436)
7214/05
+ ADD1
COM(05) 79
(b)
(26438)
7369/05
COM(05) 77
(c)
(26821)
12039/05
COM(05) 406
(d)
(26822)
12044/05
COM(05) 408
(e)
(26823)
12045/05
COM(05) 409
(f)
(26844)
12276/05
COM(05) 407
(g)
(26888)
12752/05
COM(05) 451
| Commission Communication: Developing the agenda for the Community's
external aviation policy and Commission staff working paper: Annex to the
Commission Communication
Commission Communication: A framework for developing relations with the
Russian Federation in the field of air transport
Commission Communication: Strengthening aviation relations with Chile
Commission Communication: Developing a Community civil aviation policy
towards Australia
Commission Communication: Developing a Community civil aviation policy
towards the Republic of India
Commission Communication: Developing a Community civil aviation policy
towards New Zealand
Commission Communication: Developing a Community civil aviation area
with Ukrain
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration |
Minister's letter of 13 December 2005 |
| Previous Committee Report |
(a) and (b) HC 34-i (2005-06), para 15 (4 July 2005)
(c)-(g) HC 34-vii (2005-06), para 6 (26 October 2005)
|
| To be discussed in Council
| (a) 27 June 2005
(b)-(g) Not known |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Clear
|
Background
13.1 International aviation relations between Member States and
third-countries have traditionally been governed by bilateral
air services agreements. However, these have been found by the
European Court of Justice to be contrary to Article 43 EC where
they deny market access to carriers owned and controlled by nationals
of another Member State. This in practice marked the start of
a Community external aviation policy and an important response
from the Commission has been to develop an overall policy for
civil aviation relations with third-countries. In advance of a
fully developed policy the Commission was mandated to negotiate
a comprehensive air services agreement with the US Government
and so-called "horizontal agreements" with all third-countries
to bring Member States' bilateral agreements with those countries
into line with Community law. Negotiations with the US authorities
are ongoing. Horizontal agreements have been negotiated with a
number of third-countries, including Australia, Chile, New Zealand
and Ukraine, so as to alter such air services agreements with
Member States as they may have in order to remove discriminatory
provisions.
13.2 The latest stage in development of an overall
policy is document (a), the Commission's Communication "Developing
the agenda for the Community's external aviation policy".
It proposed moving increasingly from bilateral agreements with
third-countries towards agreements between the Community and those
countries — such agreements would be based on the twin objectives
of opening up markets and ensuring fair competition. To this end
it suggested taking forward an external aviation policy that would:
- continue to bring existing
air services agreements into compliance with the European Court
of Justice ruling;
- create by 2010 a common aviation area comprising
the Community and southern and eastern neighbours; and
- secure comprehensive regional agreements, especially
with the US, China and Russia.
13.3 In documents (b)-(g) the Commission requested
mandates to negotiate civil aviation agreements, in place of existing
bilateral agreements, between the Community and Russia, Chile,
Australia, India, New Zealand and Ukraine. The aim would be comprehensive
agreements on so-called Open Aviation Areas "combining market
opening with a parallel process of regulatory cooperation and/or
convergence notably in priority areas such as aviation safety,
security, environmental protection, research and technology and
application of competition rules ensuring a level playing field
and fair and equal conditions for competition". In the absence
of horizontal agreements with Russia and India, amongst the matters
to be dealt with in their negotiations would be the discriminatory
provisions of Member States' bilateral agreements.
13.4 When we considered document (a) (and document
(b)) in July 2005 we noted that there might be important implications
for the development of the Community's aviation sector. We did
not clear them and asked before considering them further to have
from the Government an account of the outcome of its consultations
with interested parties and other Member States. We also asked
what response the Commission had made to comments about the inaccurate
description of the role of the European Aviation Safety Agency
in the first document. When we had documents (c)-(g) before us
in October 2005 we deferred further consideration of them until
we had the Government's response to our earlier request. We added
that, having noted the rather cursory consideration of subsidiarity
in these documents we should like also a clear statement of the
Government's own view of the subsidiarity issue.[42]
The Minister's letter
13.5 In her response the Parliamentary Under Secretary
of State, Department for Transport (Ms Karen Buck) first puts
to rest the issue the role of the European Aviation Safety Agency
saying that following the Government drawing the mistakes to the
attention of the Commission it corrected the document.
13.6 On the of the results of consultations with
other Member States, the Minister tells us that series of discussions
about document (a) about future policy took place in the Council
working group and other fora. Member States were generally supportive
of the Commission's proposed first aim of continued steps to bring
existing bilateral agreements into line with Community law. But
they did stress the need to take a flexible and collaborative
approach to the achievement of this objective, by entering into
negotiations itself with third-countries under the "horizontal
mandate" and by avoiding actions which could jeopardise the
continued operation and development of Member States' bilateral
agreements.
13.7 The Minister continues that in relation to the
second objective of gradual adoption of ambitious agreements between
the Community and third-countries, particularly with the near
neighbours and in comprehensive regional agreements, Member States
expressed a range of views. They:
- were generally supportive of
measures to extend the common aviation area to neighbouring countries;
- recognised the potential merits of further global
agreements between the Community and third-countries, where these
are based on the twin objectives of market opening and regulatory
convergence (including fair competition);
- stressed, however, the need for the Commission
to demonstrate, case-by-case, the added value of Community level
action before any new negotiating mandates are granted; and
- stressed the importance of enabling Member States
to continue negotiating the bilateral expansion of traffic rights
until the point where fully open arrangements are agreed at Community
level, in order to avoid freezing development of important bilateral
traffic routes.
13.8 The Minister says the Government also held informal
discussions with interested parties, including UK airlines. These
indicated a broadly similar range of concerns and views, with
a strong emphasis on the importance of demonstrating added value
in action at Community level and on the need to ensure a level
competitive playing field as a basis for market opening.
13.9 Finally in relation to document (a) the Minister
tells us that in June 2005 the Transport Council agreed a set
of conclusions which reflected the views of Member States she
has described for us.
13.10 As for the Communications about mandates to
negotiate agreements with Russia, Chile, Australia, India, New
Zealand and Ukraine, documents (b)-(g), the Minister reminds us
that the Government would wish to gain some assurance that agreements
along the lines described by the Commission were a realistic possibility.
It would want assurance that, on the basis of initial contacts
with the third-country concerned, the Commission expected to be
able to secure an agreement based on both a reciprocal opening
of markets and achieving a high level of regulatory convergence.
She says that information presented by the Commission and other
contacts suggests that for most of these countries there would
appear to be a reasonable prospect of achieving such agreements
were the Commission granted negotiating mandates. The period necessary
to secure agreement would be likely to vary considerably from
country to country. Australia, New Zealand and Chile, for example,
already operate relatively liberalised regimes in a regulatory
environment reasonably close to the Community's. But regulatory
convergence with some other countries seems unlikely to be achievable
in the near future, although, the Minister adds, progress towards
that end would in itself be a desirable goal and a possible objective
in itself for a Community-level agreement. Nevertheless, the rapid
pace of change in some of countries, notably China and India,
means that the prospects for regulatory convergence and market
opening may well increase markedly in the near future.
13.11 The Minister then reiterates the Government's
wish that Member States' ability to maintain and develop their
bilateral arrangements would not be frozen for a lengthy period
whilst Community-level negotiations were in progress. She says
the Council has yet to discuss in detail possible mandates to
open negotiations with any of the countries in the documents.
But in discussions about a possible mandate to negotiate an aviation
agreement between the Community and China Member States and the
Commission have agreed in principle that the former should remain
responsible for negotiating traffic rights on a bilateral basis
until there were a genuine prospect of securing fully open markets.
Such an arrangement would meet the Government's concerns on this
matter.
13.12 On subsidiarity the Minister notes that there
are many aspects of aviation now subject to Community legislation.
She tells us the Government believes that:
- bilateral aviation agreements
should be replaced by Community-level agreements only where there
are clear benefits in doing;
- there may well be cases where the Community may
be better able to achieve the objectives set out in the Council's
conclusions than individual Member States; and
- the Community and its Member States acting collectively
may enjoy increased negotiating power.
But she adds that an assessment would be needed case-by-case,
on the basis of evidence supplied by the Commission, when specific
mandates are under discussion.
13.13 Finally, the Minister tells us that in preparing
its Communications on specific countries the Commission has, except
in one case — Ukraine, where the relevant report is understood
to be still in preparation — circulated extracts from reports
produced by consultants which set out in general terms the potential
impacts of possible aviation agreements. She gives us copies of
the executive summaries of the available reports which discuss
impacts in terms of market analysis, legal issues, institutional
structures and aviation policy issues.
Conclusion
13.14 We are grateful to the Minister for the
information she gives us. If Community-level agreements can be
negotiated in the terms suggested and without in the meantime
compromising development of bilateral arrangements we can see
their utility. We have no further questions and clear the documents.
42 See headnote. Back
|
