COMMON POLICY IN THE AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRY

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The Parliament considers the state of the aeronautical industry on the basis of oral questions addressed to the Commission. Spinelli speaks on this occasion with special knowledge of the circumstances since it was he - as the Member of the Commission responsible for industrial policy from 1970 to 1976 - who originated the proposal for a programme of action for the European aeronautical industry (November 1975), which is still to be found on the Council's shelves. In "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 13 january 1977)

Mr President. I would first like to thank Commissioner Davignon for outlining the Commission's intention, through directives which I consider suitable, to put to immediate use the eight million u.a. which Parliament was well-advised to extract from a reluctant Council and which provide the Commission with its first opportunity to replace mere words with positive and effective action in the aeronautical sector.

Nevertheless, I feel that the most important part of Mr Guldberg's question has been overlooked by both Mr Cifarelli and Mr Davignon. The essential step is to establish a European aerospace industry and not to ensure participation in research pogrammes, important though this may be.

Mr Guldberg reminds us that Parliament - once again backing the Commission's proposal against the Council - has approved the establishment of an item for aid to the aerospace industry. The Commission, for its part, has proposed that national financing be replaced gradually over the years by Community financing. As I see it, this is the heart of the matter. Many Members, however, have called for hearings. My own six years experience of hearing can basically be summed up as follows. Governments have at first refused even to participate in any discussions and then, in the end, have agreed. Governments - or rather ministers and high-ranking officials appointed by them - have then informed us that the only joint programme they could consider would be one put forward by the manufacturers themselves. Thereupon we held hearings and discussions with the manufacturers who were all very enthusiastic and who all recognized that the European solution would be their salvation. At the end of a long round of talks, these ma

nufacturers informed us that they would be prepared to put forward a joint programme only on condition that their governments could agree on a method of allocating financial aid. But as long as each state pursues its own aid policy how can the manufacturers submit a joint programme?

This is a vicious circle from which there is no escape. And if the Community, the Commission and the European Parliament do no more than make fine speeches on the need for Europe to be independent and on how nice it would be to have this or that type of aircraft, but do not have the necessary means for implementing the programmes, we shall go on witnessing the break down of this important industry in Europe.

In order to avoid this we must have a precise idea of the problem: if all we do is make requests for Community appropriations to add to national aid, we will be dealing with trifling amounts of no use at all, because what will counts is the massive financial aid which Britain and France - and, to a lesser extent, Germany and Italy - give their industries.

There must therefore be a programme to phase out national financing over a period of 5-7 years. Only a programme of this kind will make it worthwhile contacting the various companies concerned, holding hearings and so on.

Both personally and on behalf of my Group. Mr Davignon, I would like to urge Parliament to see that this basic concept of gradually replacing national financing by Community financing is not forgotten.

Otherwise we shall have only Community prattle about aviation, which means that we will not succeed in tackling the problem effectively and will be left with a sense of frustration.