4 Single European Sky
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision | (a)-(b) Cleared from scrutiny
(c) Not cleared from scrutiny, but conditional waiver granted
|
| Document details | (a) Commission Communication about accelerating implementation of the Single European Sky
(b) Draft Regulation concerning aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation services
(c) Draft Regulation consolidating and amending four Regulations concerning the Single European Sky
|
| Legal base | (a) —; (b) and (c) Article 100(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Document numbers | (a) (35071), 11490/13, COM(13) 408; (b) (35072), 11496/13, COM(13) 409; (c) (35073), 11501/13 + ADDs 1-2, COM(13) 410
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
4.1 In 2004 a "Single European Sky" (SES) was launched
to deliver a seamless, safe, sustainable, efficient and interoperable
European ATM (air traffic management) system capable of meeting
future capacity needs and not artificially constrained by national
borders. SESAR (SES ATM Research), is the technological/industrial
complement to the SES and crucial to its realisation.[18]
4.2 The SES Framework Regulation requires the Commission
to review the application of the SES legislation and report periodically
on progress in the light of the original objectives. In that context,
in June 2013 the Commission published its Communication, document
(a), discussing various matters, including the changing role of
Eurocontrol (the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation),[19]
and discussing two Regulations it was proposing — document
(b), to amend the Regulation establishing the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA), and document (c), to recast (consolidate
and amend) the SES Regulations.
4.3 When we considered these documents in July 2013
we recognised the value of the developing SES system and noted
the Government's nuanced support for the present proposals. However,
we said we would only consider them further when we had accounts
in due course of developments on matters drawn to our attention
by the Government.
4.4 In September we heard from the Government that
no Council working group discussions had taken place, but they
were expected to commence during the Italian Presidency. We learnt
further that the European Parliament had, however, been considering
the proposals and completed its first reading in March. We were
told about the European Parliament's amendments to the draft Regulations
and the Government's view of them. Whilst grateful for this interim
report we looked forward to hearing how negotiations in the Council
working group were developing, before we would consider the documents
again. Meanwhile they remained under scrutiny.
4.5 We have now received the substantive report we
asked for and have learnt that the Government has secured resolution
of the points originally drawn to our attention, in a compromise
text that the Presidency may seek agreement on General Approaches
on the two draft Regulations at the 3 December Transport Council.
However we have heard also that it is possible that the Presidency
text for the draft recast Regulation might exclude Gibraltar from
its scope. Nevertheless the Government asks us for a waiver from
the scrutiny reserve resolution to enable to support a General
Approach if the Gibraltar issue is resolved.
4.6 We note that the Government has made good
progress in securing improvements to these legislative proposals.
On that basis we clear the EASA draft Regulation, document (b).
We also now clear the Commission Communication, document (a).
But, given the difficulty with Spain over Gibraltar, we do not
clear the SES recasting draft Regulation, document (c). However,
if the Presidency or the Council proposes a General Approach text
for agreement which unambiguously secures Gibraltar's position
we grant the Government a waiver, in terms of the Scrutiny Reserve
Resolution, allowing it to support such a text. Whether or not
the waiver is used we wish to have a report of the outcome of
the forthcoming Transport Council.
Full details of
the documents: (a) Commission Communication:
Accelerating the implementation of the Single European Sky:
(35071), 11490/13, COM(13) 408; (b) Draft Regulation amending
Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 in field of aerodromes, air traffic
management and air navigation services: (35072), 11496/13, COM(13)
409; (c) Draft Regulation on the implementation of the Single
European Sky (recast): (35073), 11501/13 + ADDs 1-2, COM(13) 410.
Background
4.7 The EU aviation safety regulatory system is a
partnership between a number of authorities — the Commission,
the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the Member States
and their national aviation authorities (CAA in the UK) and affected
stakeholders. The EASA's primary objective is to establish and
maintain a high and uniform level of civil aviation safety in
the EU, covering its areas of competence, which are airworthiness,
personnel licensing, aircraft operations, safety of third country
aircraft, aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation
services.
4.8 The Single European Sky (SES) initiative was
launched in response to the growing problem in air traffic management
(ATM) delays in the late 1990s. The principal objective of the
SES is to deliver a seamless, safe, sustainable, efficient and
interoperable European ATM system capable of meeting future capacity
needs and not artificially constrained by national borders.
4.9 The legislative basis for the SES was established
in April 2004 with the entry into force of four high-level Regulations,
now termed "SES I". These Regulations were amended by
Regulation (EC) No. 1070/2009 to introduce a performance scheme
and network management function and to accelerate the formation
of cross-border "functional airspace blocks" (FABs)
involving two or more states collaborating to improve operational
efficiency in their combined airspace. These amendments were part
of the SES second package (SES II) aimed at expediting the delivery
of SESAR (SES ATM Research), which is the technological/industrial
complement to the SES and crucial to its realisation.
4.10 The SES Framework Regulation requires the Commission
to review the application of the SES legislation and report periodically
on progress in the light of the original objectives and with a
view to future needs and in its Communication, document (a), the
Commission:
· rehearsed
the justification for, and the history of, the SES;
· asserted
the need to accelerate implementation of the SES and associated
reform of the European ATM system;
· discussed
various aspects of the two Regulations it was proposing —
document (b), to amend the Regulation establishing the EASA and
document (c), to recast (consolidate and amend) the four SES I
Regulations; and
· discussed
the changing role of Eurocontrol (the European Organisation for
the Safety of Air Navigation).
4.11 The key aspects of the draft Regulation to recast
the four SES I Regulations, document (c), which the Commission
terms "SES II+", are:
· extending
the application of the SES to airspace outside Europe, in the
ICAO NAT (International Civil Aviation Organisation North Atlantic)
region where the UK and Ireland are jointly responsible for air
traffic services;
· a requirement
for National Supervisory Authorities (NSAs) to be legally distinct
and independent from air navigation service providers by 2020;
· a requirement
for NSAs to take part in an undefined collaborative network to
pool and share resources, knowledge and best practice supported
by the Commission and EASA. (There is a similar new provision
in the amending EASA Regulation, document (b));
· an existing
requirement on Member States to consult stakeholders, which in
the UK is currently exercised by the Department for Transport,
would in future fall on National Supervisory Authorities;
· the
concept of support services as non-core air navigation services[20]
is proposed, with requirements for core and non-core air navigation
services to be delivered through separate undertakings by 2020
— the objective being to allow a contestable market for
non-core services;
· a number
of non-core air navigation services currently being delivered
at Member State or FAB level would be delivered centrally at EU
level, with the Commission given power to expand the number of
centralised services by way of Delegated Acts;
· amendments
to the SES Performance Scheme with the objective of speeding up
decision making;
· requirements
for the SESAR programme, including some aspects from the Implementing
Regulation for SESAR Common Projects and making clear the comitology
role;
· the
obligation to form FABs would remain with Member States (the UK
has formed one with Ireland) and provision for the Commission
to develop detailed rules for FABs rather than just guidance material
as now;
· Eurocontrol
currently performs the "Network Manager" role for the
EU air traffic management network. The Network Manager would be
given additional functions relating to centralised services. It
is envisaged that the role of Network Manager will be removed
from Eurocontrol and designated as a self-standing service provider
on the basis of an industrial partnership by 2020; and
· a new
requirement for air navigation service providers to consult with
airspace users on all major issues related to the services provided,
with power for the Commission to produce Implementing Regulations
in this area.
4.12 The key aspects of the EASA draft amending Regulation,
document (b), are:
· moving
some elements of SES legislation into the EASA Regulation to make
the legislative framework simpler and more consistent;
· changes
in the naming and governance of the EASA in line with an inter-institutional
agreement covering all EU Agencies — the new name would
be the "European Union Agency for Aviation";
· development
and adoption of new technical rules (on aircrew, operations, aerodromes
and air traffic management and air navigation services) would
be under Delegated Acts, with the Commission obliged to consult
an expert committee;
· a number
of changes in relation to applicability to the military bringing
the EASA into line with how SES addresses the military;
· transfer
of the safety aspects of the SES Regulations into the EASA system
including interoperability and flexible use of airspace concepts;
and
· changes
to the governance of the EASA, including creation of an Executive
Board, as a sub-group of the Management Board.
4.13 When we considered these documents in July 2013
we recognised the value of the developing SES system in providing
better, more effective and reliable conditions for air travel
across EU airspace and noted the Government's nuanced support
for the present proposals. However, we said we would only consider
the proposals further when we had accounts in due course of developments
on the matters drawn to our attention, that is the International
Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) NAT (North Atlantic) Region,
NSAs, definition of core and non-core services, centralisation
of services, FABs, the Network Manager, the balance between Delegated
Acts and Implementing Acts, the EASA and the military, shortening
of text on SES tools, scope in relation to 'Air Traffic Management'
and 'Air Traffic Management and Air Navigation Services', EASA
governance and any issues arising from the Government's consultations
and further consideration of the financial implications and the
impacts of the proposals.
4.14 In July the Government updated us on the documents
and we heard first that:
· the
proposals were considered at the informal Transport Council on
the SES on the 16 September 2013;
· at this
meeting all Member States supported the SES initiative and recognised
the need to make further progress;
· the
vast majority said, however, that the SESII+ proposals were too
much too soon and that the EU should not be adding more regulation
before the current regulatory framework is fully implemented and
has had time to deliver; and
· no further
Council working group discussions had taken place since then,
but they were expected to commence during the Italian Presidency.
4.15 We learnt further that the European Parliament
had, however, been considering the proposals and completed its
first reading in March. We were given a detailed explanation of
the European Parliament's key amendments to the recasting draft
Regulation, document (c), including one which would suspend application
to Gibraltar, and the Government's view of them. We heard also,
in relation to the draft Regulation, document (b), to amend the
EASA Basic Regulation, that:
· it
was less controversial than the SES recast, dealing mainly with
changes to incorporate SES safety provisions removed from the
SES legislation in order to simplify and remove the current dual
legal basis for ATM safety;
· the
proposal would, however, also introduce changes to governance
arrangements and change a number of Implementing Acts to Delegated
Acts; and
· although
the European Parliament amendments make some improvements on the
issue of governance, they did not completely resolve the issue
for the UK, so the Government would be seeking further improvements
once Council discussions commenced.
4.16 Whilst grateful for this interim report, we
looked forward to hearing how negotiations in the Council working
group were developing, before we would consider the documents
again. Meanwhile they remained under scrutiny.
The Minister's letter of 14 November 2014
4.17 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill) tells us now that:
· Council
working group discussions started in July under the Italian Presidency;
· good
progress has been made and there is a strong possibility that
the Presidency will be seeking a General Approach on both the
draft Regulations at the 3 December Transport Council;
· the
Government has been proactive in proposing drafting amendments
to both the Commission's original proposal and to the Presidency's
proposed compromises and much of that drafting has been accepted;
and
· the
one area where it has not yet reached a positive conclusion is
on the important matter of the application of the Regulations
to Gibraltar.
ICAO North Atlantic Region (SES recast Regulation:
Article 1)
4.18 The Minister then describes the position reached
on its key objectives and related matters, starting with scope
in relation to the ICAO NAT region, saying on that matter that:
· the
Government believes that it is inappropriate to extend the scope
of the SES to cover that region;
· this
is high-seas airspace outside the scope of the EU treaties, where
the UK and Ireland are jointly responsible for the provision of
air traffic services under a delegation from ICAO, but have no
sovereignty over the airspace itself;
· the
Government has received strong support from other Member States
and the European Parliament on its position and has successfully
secured the removal of the NAT region from the scope;
· this
will assist the Government in resolving an infringement procedure
that has been launched against the UK's FAB with Ireland, as the
Commission is arguing that the FAB should include the portion
of the NAT region in which UK and Ireland provide services; and
· exclusion
of the NAT region from the overall scope would mean that it is
clear the SES does not apply in this regard.
National Supervisory Authorities (SES recast Regulation:
Article 3)
4.19 Reminding us that the Government was concerned
that some of the Commission's provisions were excessive and could
act as an impediment to NSA ability to bring in skills and experience
from industry and vice versa, which is beneficial to the entire
Air Traffic Management system, says that:
· with
strong support from other Member States the Government has successfully
argued for new drafting that ensures NSAs have the necessary freedoms
to bring in expertise from industry and protects the ability of
Member States to have a role in key appointments; and
· the
Government is content with the current text, which is consistent
with the current arrangements in place in the UK and the separation
that already exists between the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
and NATS (the UK's air traffic control provider).
National Supervisory Authorities cooperation (SES
recast Regulation: Article 5)
4.20 The Minister adds that the Government is content
with amendments to the text that deals with collaboration between
NSAs, which formalises current cooperative arrangements in which
the UK already has a leading role, with a CAA official holding
the chair, and has proved to be useful in helping to share knowledge
and best practice.
Provision of support services (SES recast Regulation:
Article 10)
4.21 The Minister says that:
· the
Commission proposed the unbundling of support services from the
core of air navigation services, which could be provided by separate
undertakings under market conditions (with the usual public procurement
rules);
· the
Government was concerned that the Commission had failed to adequately
explain what services would be exposed to competition and the
benefits and impact of this;
· as a
result it was not clear to the Government that enough had been
done to consider the market that would result before regulating
for it;
· as an
alternative it proposed amendments to ensure Member States could
remove barriers that might prevent market conditions and that
this would allow time for a market to emerge naturally before
further regulation was required;
· it also
proposed that the Commission carry out some further work through
a study on the competitive provision of services in order to fully
assess the benefits and impacts before any further regulation
is proposed; and
· the
Presidency and Commission were supportive of this alternative
approach and it has been the basis for the Presidency's suggested
revisions to the text.
Performance Scheme (SES recast Regulation: Article
11)
4.22 The Minister reports that:
· the
Commission proposed to make local targets in national performance
plans compliant with EU targets rather than consistent with them,
as is the current requirement;
· the
Government was concerned that this would remove a degree of local
control;
· this
view was supported by all Member States and the Presidency in
working group discussions and the current working text has restored
the requirement for consistency;
· the
Government was supportive of more independence for the Performance
Review Body (PRB), which plays an important role in advising the
Commission on the running of the Performance Scheme;
· it wanted,
however, to ensure that Member States through the Single Sky Committee
(SSC) would be able to oversee the criteria for appointment of
the PRB;
· this
point received strong support from other Member States and the
current working text now requires decisions on both the criteria
for and the appointment of the PRB to be dealt with by the SSC
through the examination procedure;
· the
text also now includes provisions that the PRB's methodology and
evaluation process for the performance plans should be made available
to the NSAs before the EU targets are set; — the Government
supports this as it will be very helpful in ensuring that the
appropriate targets are set; and
· with
strong support from other Member States the Government has also
secured the removal of delegated acts from this Article, retaining
the current Member State input to and controls over key decisions
through the SSC.
Functional Airspace Blocks (SES recast Regulation:
Article 16)
4.23 The Minister tells us that:
· the
Government was supportive of the Commission's objective of allowing
more flexibility for FABs through recognition of other collaborative
mechanisms such as industrial partnerships;
· in negotiation
the Government's objective was to remove some of the prescriptive
requirements for FABs, which it felt could work against the flexibility
the Commission was aiming at;
· it has
been successful here, with the current text much less rigid and
allowing more recognition of other mechanisms of collaboration
such as industry partnerships; and
· this
should allow for recognition of work NATS is doing with other
air navigation service providers outside of the UK's FAB to make
efficiencies in the delivery of air navigation services.
Network management functions (SES recast Regulation:
Article 17)
4.24 The Minister says that:
· the
Government had some concerns about the expansion of some of the
tasks currently performed at a Network Level, particularly due
to the proposed use of delegated acts to add to them, as well
as power being given to the Commission to change the governance
arrangements without Member State input in the detail;
· with
strong support from other Member States the Government has restored
the use of the examination procedure through the SSC to make decisions
on adding to these functions and on their governance;
· this
restores Member State controls and resolves the Government's concerns;
and
· at the
same time it is content that there remains a mechanism to allow
for additional services to be delivered at a Network Level once
a clear and compelling case has been made for doing so, such as
the evolving Eurocontrol concept of Centralised Services.
Amendment of the EASA basic Regulation, document
(b)
4.25 The Minister tells us that:
· the
Government was largely supportive of this proposal, which was
focused on simplification by moving some safety elements of the
SES into the EASA Regulation to ensure a single clear regulatory
framework;
· it had,
however, concerns about an apparent extension of scope to include
the military, changes to the naming and governance of the agency
in line with an inter-institutional agreement on all EU agencies
and the extensive use of delegated acts proposed to replace implementing
acts;
· discussions
started in October, with the Presidency choosing only to deal
with the transfer of some SES provisions into the EASA Regulation;
· it considered
that other issues should not be dealt with at this time as the
EASA and the Commission are conducting a much wider review of
the EASA basic Regulation, with further legislative proposals
expected within the next few years;
· this
has meant that discussions have focused on provisions the Government
supports and have moved quickly; and
· it has
managed to achieve its key objectives of ensuring the military
is excluded from the scope of the EASA Regulation and, with support
from other Member States, have removed the extensive use of delegated
acts.
Use of delegated acts
4.26 Reminding us that the Government was of the
view that the proposed use of delegated acts in some areas needed
further consideration and was concerned these might be inappropriate,
the Minister says that:
· all
Member States and the Presidency shared its concerns and the role
of comitology has been restored in key decisions;
· in all
other respects the Government is content with the proposals, which
it feels are appropriate and proportionate with the right level
of Member State input into decisions on implementing legislation;
and
· in particular
the Government is supportive of new text that clarifies the arrangements
for the deployment of new technologies through the SESAR programme,
in which UK industry already has a leading role.
Consultation with passenger groups
4.27 The Minister tells us that, in addition to the
Government's ongoing engagement with stakeholders through its
European Air Traffic Management Policy Committee and Air Traffic
Management Stakeholder Forum, it has followed up a suggestion
from the Lords' European Union Committee about exploring options
to engage passenger groups. He continues that:
· in
August, a Department for Transport official made a presentation
on the draft recast Regulation to the CAA's Consumer Panel and
sought advice on whether and how to approach passenger representative
groups for views;
· the
panel advised that, as the draft Regulation is highly technical,
it would be difficult to get meaningful input from consumer or
passenger groups and in this area it was appropriate to rely on
input from airlines, who would be able to represent the passenger
on this issue as their interests were likely to be aligned (reduced
cost and delays, better routing, etc);
· nevertheless,
in addition, the Government also conducted a six week informal
consultation through UKACCS (the liaison group representing Airport
Consultative Committees) — many Airport Consultative Committees
have passenger representatives; and
· whilst
little was received in the way of responses, what was received
did mirror the views from airlines, whom the Government had already
consulted when developing its policy and objective on the draft
Regulation.
Impact Assessment / Financial Implications
4.28 Noting that the draft Regulation, document (c),
is a recast and rationalisation of existing Regulations, the Minister
comments that negotiations have confirmed the Government's initial
observations that these proposals will not lead to additional
financial burdens or have significant material impacts. He says
that as a result of this the Government has not completed an impact
assessment checklist.
Gibraltar
4.29 The Minister says the Commission included Gibraltar
within the scope of the draft recast Regulation, but as he had
reported to us previously the European Parliament voted to replace
the existing text, removing Gibraltar from the scope. He continues
that:
· this
issue has received limited discussion to date in the working group
and so is still to be resolved;
· aware
of the dispute between the UK and Spain, the Presidency has placed
the text dealing with scope in relation to Gibraltar in square
brackets, indicating that it might be removed;
· the
Government has firmly objected to this and insisted that as EU
territory Gibraltar should remain within the scope of EU Regulations;
· Spain
has proposed alternative text suspending the application of the
Regulation to Gibraltar airport until the arrangements in the
Joint Declaration made by the Foreign Ministers of the Kingdom
of Spain and the United Kingdom on 2 December 1987[21]
enter into operation;
· the
Government will continue to argue strongly for Gibraltar to be
included in the scope of the draft Regulation; and
· some
further working group discussions will take place ahead of the
3 December Transport Council to resolve the remaining details,
but it is not clear whether the Presidency will seek to resolve
the Gibraltar issue during these discussions or whether it will
have to be discussed at the Council itself.
Conclusion
4.30 The Minister concludes by saying that:
· overall,
the Government having secured its key priorities from the negotiations,
he considers that the terms of the General Approaches on the two
draft Regulations will represent a successful outcome for the
UK;
· the
Government would therefore wish to support them, provided that
the text of the draft recast Regulation does not exclude Gibraltar
from its scope;
· he appreciates
that we may want to hold this matter under scrutiny pending resolution
of the Gibraltar issue and may not have the opportunity to consider
a further update on Gibraltar ahead of the Council if the matter
is not speedily resolved; and
· he would
like us to consider granting a scrutiny waiver ahead of the Council,
on the understanding that the Government would not wish to support
a General Approach that would exclude Gibraltar from the application
of the Regulation.
Previous Committee Reports
Ninth Report HC 83-ix (2013-14), chapter 5 (10 July
2013) and Fifth Report HC 219-v (2014-15), chapter 5 (2 July 2014).
18 For SESAR see http://www.sesarju.eu/about. Back
19
For Eurocontrol see http://www.eurocontrol.int/about-eurocontrol. Back
20
The proposal refers to "the provision of communication, navigation
and surveillance services, as well as meteorological and aeronautical
information services". Back
21
See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmfaff/366/36616.htm. Back
| 
