I am writing to update you on the progress of negotiations on this European Regulation, which would extend the responsibilities of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to cover flight operations and personnel licensing. The Portuguese Presidency hopes to reach an ageement with the European Parliament in December 2007, following the EP's plenary second reading.

Since my letter of 11 May 2007,[35] the Council reached political agreement on a Common Position at the June Transport Council and the formal Common Position was adopted in October 2007. The Portuguese Presidency started informal discussions with the European Parliament and Commission on the issues where the EP's opinion differed from the Council's position in September, updating the Aviation Working Group on the outcome of these discussions.

  Following the transmission of the Council's Common Position to the European Parliament in October, the Presidency have been exploring the possibility of a possible second-reading agreement with the European Parliament. Of the 31 original amendments proposed by the EP in March 2007, the majority of these have either been modified and included in the Common Position, or the EP has indicated that it will withdraw them in the context of an overall agreement with the Council. This includes the proposal to give EASA a role in determining aviation security, which the UK did not support, and the EP's proposal that EASA shoud not fund its continuing airworthiness activities from the fees and charges paid by industry to the Agency. There are 10 remaining issues that the EP and Council have yet to resolve, two of which are of particular interest to the UK.

  The first concerns the possibility in the Common Position text, that general medical practitioners (GMP) should be allowed to act as aero-medical examiners and issue medical certificates for the purpose of the leisure pilot licence, where national law so permits. Some MEPs are unhappy with this proposal and would like the monopoly that aero-medical examiners have over the pilot licensing system in most Member States to be maintained. I would prefer to allow the current situation in the UK to continue, where GPs are allowed to countersign a pilot's self-declaration of medical fitness to fly provided that the GP has access to the applicant's past medical records, and will continue to argue for this point.

  The second outstanding issue concerns the question of whether cabin crew should be issued with an attestation of initial training, or whether they should be licensed. The EP has proposed that cabin crew should be licensed, and has said that this is the Parliament's top priority. The Council's Aviation Working Group has debated the issue on a number of occasions, and is divided on the issue. The UK, together with several other Member States, would prefer not to see a mandatory system of cabin crew licensing, as we do not believe this is justified on safety grounds.

  However, there are tactical considerations to take into account here. The Regulation contains important financial provisions that will assist in stabilising EASA's finances by enabling the Agency to carry over its income from the fees paid for its certification activities from one year to the next. If we do not reach agreement with the EP by the end of the year, EASA will not be able to make use of this provision and its finances will not be as secure as the Government and industry would like. So while I will continue to argue strongly for the points outlined above, I will be prepared to fall back—only if absolutely necessary—to achieve our wider objectives. In this case my aim will be to ensure any cabin crew licensing regime is as light touch as possible.

16 November 2007