| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene at this stage. However, by describing the burdensome nature and daily work of the European Union, is the Minister not underlining how impossible is the suggestion that a second chamber might reconnect to the public by meeting four times a year, particularly if it is to be excluded from careful consideration of legislative proposals? Would there not be a risk of the second chamber being as disconnected from the actuality of what is happening as the public?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I do not deny for a moment that there are difficulties, but I believe—I say this with no disrespect to either MEPs or former MEPs here—that people in the United Kingdom look first and foremost for the redress of grievances and problems to their constituency Members of Parliament. There is an additional and important link from the people to Europe, and that is the problem which the proposal for a second chamber attempts to solve. However, I do not deny that considerable problems are associated with it. Therefore, although we fully acknowledge the points made in the Select Committee report about the practical difficulties of introducing greater involvement by national parliamentarians in EU affairs, we judge that there are practical options for dealing with it.
I make no apology for noting that the Government are still listening to contributions. Although I cannot say to my noble friend Lord Barnett that I shall be rushing round with details of such debate, I can assure him that the matter will be looked at most carefully. We acknowledge that a second chamber could take many different forms, and many contributions have been made from many different sources.
Skipping through a number of issues that have already been raised, I turn now to the "Future of Europe" Convention, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Bruce expressed concern about the democratic deficit in Europe. I am sure that that is the type of issue that the convention will address.
As the House knows, the report of the "Future of Europe" Convention was agreed by the Heads of State and Government Meeting at Laeken in December 2001 and is to be ready in good time for the next IGC. The House will already be aware that the task of the "Future of Europe" Convention, as set out in the Laeken Declaration was to,
- "consider the key issues arising for the Union's future development and to try to identify the various possible responses".
As the House will know, in December 2001 the European Council appointed Valéry Giscard d'Estaing to be chairman of the "Future of Europe" Convention. The first meeting is due to take place in Brussels on 28th February. We expect the discussions to continue until the spring or summer of 2003. The gap between the end of the convention and the beginning of the IGC in 2004 is important so that, above all, national parliaments are able to offer a view on the various options raised at the conclusions of the convention—whatever form they may take.
In conclusion, I reiterate the importance the Government attach to strengthening the role of national parliaments in the European Union process. This belief underpins our thinking about the possible second chamber. We greatly welcome, therefore, the contribution of the report made by the European Union Committee of this House and the opportunity the report has given us today to have this useful and informed debate, the contents of which will be noted carefully by the Government.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have had a good and full debate on the report. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that I do not intend to summarise the debate or any of the speeches made. I Thank all noble Lords who have taken part. It is interesting that noble Lords are divided almost evenly between those who are members of the committee and those who are not. However, with the honourable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and, of course, the Minister, the conclusions reached were more or less unanimous.
I thank the Minister for his response. He gave many reasons why a second chamber would not do. He left me rather lost as to what it might do, other than being a virtual second chamber where people would not have even to meet together. However, that issue is for another day.
I hope that the debate has been useful, particularly given that the convention is taking place in a fortnight's time. We were pleased to have the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, has been present for a considerable part of the debate. I hope that they will find the debate useful in their deliberations in the convention.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, I hope that the Prime Minister may find the time to read this debate, although I am somewhat on the noble Lord's side on that. However, if he does not find the time, I hope that the Minister for Europe, Mr Peter Hain—he is the Government's representative at the convention—will do so and that he will find some of the contributions made today useful. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Airspace in Europe: EUC Reports
6.33 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe rose to move, That this House takes note of the reports of the European Union Committee, Reducing Air Traffic Delays: Civil and Military Management of Airspace in Europe (14th Report, Session 2000–01, HL Paper 79, and Supplementary Report: 9th Report, Session 2001–02, HL Paper 63).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I thank members of Sub-Committee B for the hard work that they put into the two inquiries. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, who joined us from Sub-Committee C, whose interventions have been much valued by the committee. There were some doubts as to whether we should have this debate, given the consequences for aviation of the tragic events of 11th September. But for reasons I shall give, we have proceeded. It gives me the opportunity now to thank publicly others who have helped us greatly.
Our gratitude goes to all who gave evidence. I especially want to express our thanks and appreciation to our two specialist advisers, Air Vice Marshal John Feesey, of the RAF, and Mr Tony Goldman, CB, formerly of the Civil Aviation Authority, without whom we would have found it impossible to find our way through what seemed like a whole new world to most of us.
Our thanks also go to Siobhan Conway, our then secretary, and our invaluable clerk, Patrick Wogan. I also express my personal appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. He chaired the session in the second inquiry when I had in the meantime become a non-executive director of the National Air Traffic Services Limited about which I now declare an interest.
When we began this inquiry a year ago there was severe congestion in the skies over western Europe. That was partly due to the seemingly inexorable increase in civil aviation and partly because of the complex division of airspace over Europe. We were concerned about the areas of airspace set aside exclusively for military use. In some member states, civil aviation had been permanently excluded from such areas. In others, the system known as "flexible use of air space" operated which allowed civil aviation to make occasional use of military zones. The overall effect, however, was to add another factor which produced congestion which in turn contributed to delays which were both costly to operators, damaging to the environment, and irritating (to say the least) to travellers.
Congestion and delays to air traffic in Europe first reached crisis proportions in the late 1980s. This prompted the committee to report in 1989. Despite continuous efforts to deal with the problem, serious congestion still prevailed especially in the heavily used areas of western Europe. The committee again reported on the subject in 1996 when we considered the European Commission White paper on air traffic management entitled Freeing Europe's Air Space.
In 1999 Eurocontrol, the Brussel-based Europe organisation for the safety of air navigation, estimated that delays arising from ATM problems had risen by over 30 per cent against the previous year. Undoubtedly, a large element could be attributed to NATO air activity in the Balkans. But in 2000 the Association of European Airlines claimed that such delays were still 25.5 per cent up on 1998.The European Commission recognised that something needed to be done. In December 1999, the commissioner, Madame Loyola de Palacio, introduced proposals entitled The Creation of a Single European Sky. The Commission set up a high level group comprising senior civil and military officials to consider them. This group submitted its report to the Transport Council in December 2000. The Commission undertook to prepare draft legislation to implement the recommendations. Basically, those envisaged replacing the patchwork of national civil and military control over western Europe by a single area subject to regulation by the Commission. It was an interesting concept but the difficulty lay in how to graft a new system on to one which had devolved since the Second World War.
When we began the inquiry the Commission's proposals had not been published. They were blocked by the Spanish unwillingness to allow any proposals for aviation to be extended to Gibraltar. None the less, it seemed to us important to look at the principles and the way in which the Commission sought to marry its concept of regulation to the pan-European system with what was already operating under Eurocontrol.
It is important to remember, too, that Eurocontrol had been wrestling with the problems of air traffic management and had launched a series of technical and institutional programmes to improve delivery of ATM services. In January 2000 European aviation Ministers launched a new phase of these programmes entitled ATM 2000+. The first of those new measures, reduced vertical separation minima (RVSM) came into effect only last month. When others come into effect in 2005, and if implemented by all member states, Eurocontrol calculate that it will have increased capacity over the core area of western Europe by 60 per cent.
We delayed debating our report and the Government's response because we were conscious that change was in the air (if noble Lords will forgive the pun). The United Kingdom and Spanish Governments announced a resumption of discussions about Gibraltar. This led to the UK suspending the application of single sky to Gibraltar until the issue was clarified. This, in turn, cleared the way for the Commission to work up its single sky proposals and to publish them officially on 10th October 2001.
However, a more serious event occurred on 11th September which had a direct impact on this subject. The terrorist outrages in New York and Washington were followed by a considerable drop in civil aviation, particularly over the North Atlantic. That reduction in traffic caused us to ask whether the original purpose of our report had been overtaken. As a consequence of 11th September, delays were reduced because,
effectively, the decrease in traffic eased congestion. Nevertheless, we decided to take evidence from the Commissioner and to report our findings.While acknowledging that there had been a downturn in aviation, the Commissioner argued that it was only temporary and that the long-term trend would resume, so the issue still needed to be addressed. By that time we were able to examine the Commission's published single sky proposals. Essentially, those did not differ from the unpublished version that had informed our earlier report and went some way towards fleshing out some of the details for us. It went some way, but in our opinion, not far enough.
Two areas required careful examination. The relationship between the European Commission's Single Sky Committee, as regulator for EU member states, with Eurocontrol's role as a regulator for 30 European countries, including the 15 non-members of the EU, was one of the topics. We also wanted to look carefully at how to deal with the military.
On the relationship between the Commission's Single Sky Committee and Eurocontrol, the European Commission does not have the expertise to inform its regulatory competence. It has no choice but to seek that expertise from the Eurocontrol agency. In effect, the Government say that, first, the European Commission will propose the rules; secondly, Eurocontrol will work them up using its expertise; thirdly, the European Commission will implement them for EU member states only; and, fourthly, Eurocontrol will promulgate them to non-EU states and implement them there.
The flaw at the heart of that is that, whereas the European Commission will be able to require EU member states to observe regulations because it has a legal base on which to do so, the Eurocontrol regulatory function will be unable to impose such regulation on the non-EU states because Eurocontrol is an international treaty organisation. It does not operate an international legal system comparable to that which binds EU member states. How does the Minister see that conflict being resolved?
A separate issue is that Eurocontrol is both a regulating body and a service provider. We have recommended that the distinction between those two functions be widened. We wonder how the revised Eurocontrol convention will bring about such a separation of functions and how transparent it will be. We should be grateful for the Government's views on that.
A subsidiary issue is how the European Commission's Single Sky Committee and the Eurocontrol regulation function fit together with national regulatory authorities. The relationship will vary between EU member states and non-EU states. In short, we see the potential for considerable confusion. Therefore, we believe that it is essential that the European Commission and Eurocontrol focus on determining the nature of the relationship between themselves on those issues. The Commission has
assured the committee that a document will be drawn up to demarcate competencies. That will require careful scrutiny. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will also monitor that closely?Turning to the heart of the report, which was how to integrate the military in the management of European airspace, we have a problem with the Government's views. The Commission proposes that the Single Sky Committee, the new regulatory body for EU member states, should also be able to accommodate a routine military input related to the management of airspace. It points to the successful, high-level group study in which both military and civil participants sat together and made an equal contribution.
The Commission told the committee that each member state would have two seats on the Single Sky Committee and strongly implied that it would like to see one filled by a civilian expert and the other by a military expert. Naturally, the member states would decide how they should be represented; for example, under the first pillar of the European Union. We see value in that kind of co-operation, particularly in ensuring that concepts such as the flexible use of airspace can be imposed on member states who hitherto have strongly resisted Eurocontrol's recommendation to implement this system.
However, the Government cannot accept that any aspect of the military could be subject to the single sky and to European Community legislation and thus fall under the first pillar of the European Union. I can see strong reasons why they should adopt that position. Control of the military is at the heart of national sovereignty, but we have ceded aspects of that sovereignty in other areas. We believe that, for the common good, there is much to be said for ceding a limited amount in this area too.
However, like the Government, we accept that there will be military subjects that cannot be dealt with under the single sky proposals. The problem is to find an appropriate forum. Eurocontrol has already encountered a similar problem and has come up with a solution in the form of the Civil/Military Interface Committee. There is a big difference between what Eurocontrol does and what the Commission requires. Eurocontrol is an international treaty organisation and so all decisions must be made on the basis of agreement by all the members. The European Community has its own house rules. We have proposed that whatever organisation is set up under the second pillar of the European Union, where member states meet on a national basis to discuss certain military matters, the membership of such a group be the same as the membership of the Eurocontrol Civil/Military Interface Committee for aviation issues. In that way we believe that it will be possible to maintain a consistency of policy between member states, Eurocontrol and the Single Sky Committee.
I return to the additional problem of how to fit in with the non-EU members of Eurocontrol. They will be represented on the Civil/Military Interface Committee in Eurocontrol and that will be the only
way in which they can interact with the military members of the European Community. In our opinion, that reinforces our argument that the EU member states' representatives in the Civil/Military Interface Committee should be the same as those who meet under the aegis of the second pillar dealing with military issues. We should like to know what difficulties the Government see in that recommendation and why they cannot proceed accordingly.In 1996, when we reported to the House, we recommended that the European Commission should not accede to the revised Eurocontrol convention in its own right. When we began the current inquiry we were broadly of the same opinion. However, as the inquiry progressed, we saw that an overwhelming majority of the witnesses argued strongly that the Commission should accede in its own right, in addition to the individual and separate membership of the member states. Only one witness argued against that, so we have been persuaded that that is the right way to go. Once the Commission begins to regulate the airspace of member states it will need to speak in Eurocontrol councils as a full member and for member states in areas that have become part of the acquis communitaire.
We envisage a situation where both member states and the Commission sit at the same table, with the Commission leading on those areas that have already been transferred to its competence. For that reason, we urge the early ratification of the revised Eurocontrol convention, but we do not understand why, so far, only one member state has ratified. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House why and what is likely to happen.
Looking to the future, we believe that the Commissioner's evidence to the committee was correct. The current downturn in civil aviation has been severe, but since 11th September and towards the end of 2001 the civil aviation industry has steadied and it is now beginning to regain some of its traffic. However, many of the problems that surrounded civil aviation antedated the events of 11th September and the decline in the larger companies has not been mirrored in the low-cost airlines whose traffic has surged. We conclude that it is not too early to consider how to re-map the heavens over Europe. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the reports of the European Union Committee, Reducing Air Traffic Delays: Civil and Military Management of Airspace in Europe (14th Report, Session 2000–01, HL Paper 79, and Supplementary Report: 9th Report, Session 2001–02, HL Paper 63).—(Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.)
6.49 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am very pleased that this debate is taking place, and the issues involved been effectively highlighted by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.
My remarks are confined to the issue of civil aviation. In that regard I declare an interest as the president of the British Airline Pilots Association,
which supports the development of harmonised air traffic management service providers throughout the Continent of Europe. But I also have to declare an interest as a former European Commissioner for transport. I had responsibility for aviation in that respect. I remember only too well how the transport Ministers sought to sideline me, not personally, but as the European Commissioner responsible for that area. I believe that they were quite wrong. I do not believe that the Ministers still adhere to that kind of policy. I hope not.From the concept of the environment to which my noble referred, but also as regards safety and efficiency, I believe that it is vital that the idea of a single European sky should be pursued with vigour. Indeed, that was made abundantly plain in the evidence given by Captain Steve King of BALPA and by Mr Peter Quaintmere of the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations.
The trouble which we are now experiencing is that the system we have is unable to deliver any improved—and I emphasise the word "improved"—levels of service based on the current estimates of 5 per cent annual growth.
The report which this House is now considering stresses the need for enhanced co-operation between the national and the international regulatory authorities and for a revised Eurocontrol convention. I unhesitatingly support the Government's recommendations that development of the proposals for the future of Eurocontrol should proceed as quickly as possible. They also have to be made binding on all the states which are members of Eurocontrol. I argue, as does the committee, that there is no real conflict between the activities of Eurocontrol and those of the European Union.
Perhaps I may say something about Swanwick. I believe that it is a technological triumph. I am concerned about the development of Prestwick in Scotland as the second major air traffic centre. As we know, post-September 11th the Government froze work at Prestwick because of the fall in passenger numbers. Thankfully, those numbers are now recovering and the fall, while very serious, has not been quite as drastic or as prolonged as had been feared.
Hitherto, Prestwick has been part of the Government's two centres strategy for safety and efficiency through sustained growth in the 21st century. Is it now? I believe that my noble friend Lord Filkin should tell the House where the Government now stand. I believe that he will since it is very important that he should say where Prestwick stands now.
I believe that it is quite wrong to rely on French and Belgian air traffic control for full coverage in the United Kingdom. My submission is that we need two centres to compete for future air traffic contracts under the single sky when all air traffic control is integrated across Europe. We must have regard also for the erstwhile and future lucrative North Atlantic business. Without the development of the Prestwick centre, the United Kingdom could miss out on millions
of pounds-worth of contracts. If I am wrong about that I am sure that my noble friend will put me right, but that is what I am deeply afraid of.In that regard I speak on behalf of all the United Kingdom air pilots. I call on the National Air Traffic Service and the Government to unfreeze the development at Prestwick. Even if work starts today, it could not be fully operational for some six or seven years. The European Commission will award contracts for the future provision of integrated services to modern—I underline that word—centres which are up and running. Therefore, unless both centres are in the frame we are unlikely to be in a position to bid for this work. Any further delay is bound to prejudice our air services from expanding and providing us with badly needed revenue.
I believe that the work done by the committee is absolutely first class. I congratulate my noble friend and all his colleagues on what they have done. I make no apology if I have emphasised both Swanwick and Prestwick in my remarks. I hope that my noble friend will realise that I am deeply concerned, as I hope is also the House, about the progress we can make in both respects, and the sooner the better.
7 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brooke and his committee on the report produced for the House and, indeed, for the whole of Parliament. It was a very high-powered committee. On reading through its proceedings I became aware of the tremendous amount of time devoted to it by each member, many of whom have considerable businesses and affairs to deal with. I am bound to tell my noble friend in advance, however much it may shock him, that I agree with almost 100 per cent of his remarks to us today.
The open skies policy, which one hopes will be brought into operation, is one of my justifications for supporting Britain's role, as I see it, within the European Community. It presents a classic example—the proceedings verify that—of how conversations between people, as distinct from diktats, can arrive at solutions on a friendly basis without any particular reference to the nations involved. The kind of co-operation which was spoken of in the report and by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, whose views and expertise on this subject are well known, is most agreeable.
I was last at Eurocontrol in 1977—it does not seem all that long ago—when I had the opportunity of visiting its headquarters. Those were the days when, compared to this Chamber, its computer occupied a considerable amount of space. It was a colossal installation. I am given to understand—I do not know how authoritatively—that today it is something like a hatbox. I was there because of the matters that had to be dealt with as regards military use of airspace in Belgium, Holland and to some extent France at that time. Those matters were highly sensitive. As is well-known by all parliamentarians, military matters are
the one thing that member states, particularly their governments, choose successfully to keep close to their chests.As I am sure my noble friend will confirm, a way must be found to solve the military problem in this comparatively restricted amount of airspace. That is mentioned in the report. It is well known that it is of considerable inconvenience to civil aircraft to pilot that particular area. I am not taking sides in the matter, which is unusual for me. However, I can see that the military have a point. The whole trouble is that the military, and the secrecy connected with their operations, are not always readily available to the civil governments they represent. That becomes one of the principal problems.
With respect, I endorse the enthusiasm of my noble friend and of the report for open skies. However, there is still this niggling matter to be dealt with, particularly in the area occupied by the French. They have a training area which happens to be in a critical part of the air traffic routes. I do not know how one overcomes that. Military people can be obstinate. I was in the military for a long time; I have almost forgotten it. Military people tend to be obstinate in their points of view and play their cards close to their chest.
The position is now even more complicated. In addition to the normal training facilities for which countries such as France, Belgium, the Netherlands and, to some extent, ourselves require the use of this airspace, there is now another factor to be considered. As is well known, the use of military aircraft will be covered by other arrangements, which will involve defence covering the whole of Europe.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page