Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-14-Speech-3-337"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-06-14"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Tsiviillennundusjulgestuse valdkonna ühiseeskirjad (arutelu)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060614.20.3-337"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-06-14-Speech-3-338⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Philip Bradbourn⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, since the start of this Parliament I have worked on several reports dealing with security issues in the transport sector. I notice that on each occasion we seem to have exactly the same debates, whether the report deals with seaports or, as in this case, airports and aviation. Different industries face different threats necessitating different security measures. However, the report in front of us today is one that will probably have the greatest impact on the safety of Europe’s citizens. In general I welcome this proposal. Clear rules for security across Europe’s airports are absolutely necessary. However – and here I speak personally – I have some concerns about some of the measures. Firstly, within the proposals before us, the Commission attempts to accrue more power for itself. What I refer to is the issue of special security measures. Those generally short-term increases in security, based on national intelligence, should not have to be approved by the Commission before being implemented. The Commission does not have the facility of intelligence-sharing, nor should it have, in my opinion. Therefore it does not have the ability to carry out that task effectively. In some cases that particular position could jeopardise security itself. It is for Member States to decide on what extra measures they deem necessary. The Commission’s role should be to coordinate, not to dictate. The issue of in-flight security does not belong in this regulation. Again, those are measures for individual governments and their own air carriers. My greatest concern is the proposal contained in some of the amendments adopted in committee to extend the competences of the European Aviation Safety Agency to take on security. When the EASA was originally set up, it was generally agreed that it would deal with safety issues and have no influence on security. I remember well the problems caused in some languages by that definition. Since then the EASA has not proved itself competent, even in this area of work. I do not see why, given that failing, extra powers should be given to it. Despite these reservations I see the benefits of common security standards across the Union. With the heightened terrorist threat to aviation today, improvements in security must and should be encouraged. Thus, with the support of a number of colleagues, I have tabled some amendments that not only address my concerns but all of those across the industry. I hope we can achieve a workable solution to these issues. Common standards, not draconian regulation, are required for the continued safety for all Europe’s citizens."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2005-02-18--2007-03-13)²² member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² substitute; Delegation for relations with Canada (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; Delegation for relations with the United States (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² substitute; INTA (2005-03-17--2007-01-14)²² member; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2004-10-13--2007-03-13)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, since the start of this Parliament I have worked on several reports dealing with security issues in the transport sector. I notice that on each occasion we seem to have exactly the same debates, whether the report deals with seaports or, as in this case, airports and aviation. Different industries face different threats necessitating different security measures. However, the report in front of us today is one that will probably have the greatest impact on the safety of Europe’s citizens. In general I welcome this proposal. Clear rules for security across Europe’s airports are absolutely necessary. However – and here I speak personally – I have some concerns about some of the measures. Firstly, within the proposals before us, the Commission attempts to accrue more power for itself. What I refer to is the issue of special security measures. Those generally short-term increases in security, based on national intelligence, should not have to be approved by the Commission before being implemented. The Commission does not have the facility of intelligence-sharing, nor should it have, in my opinion. Therefore it does not have the ability to carry out that task effectively. In some cases that particular position could jeopardise security itself. It is for Member States to decide on what extra measures they deem necessary. The Commission’s role should be to coordinate, not to dictate. The issue of in-flight security does not belong in this regulation. Again, those are measures for individual governments and their own air carriers. My greatest concern is the proposal contained in some of the amendments adopted in committee to extend the competences of the European Aviation Safety Agency to take on security. When the EASA was originally set up, it was generally agreed that it would deal with safety issues and have no influence on security. I remember well the problems caused in some languages by that definition. Since then the EASA has not proved itself competent, even in this area of work. I do not see why, given that failing, extra powers should be given to it. Despite these reservations I see the benefits of common security standards across the Union. With the heightened terrorist threat to aviation today, improvements in security must and should be encouraged. Thus, with the support of a number of colleagues, I have tabled some amendments that not only address my concerns but all of those across the industry. I hope we can achieve a workable solution to these issues. Common standards, not draconian regulation, are required for the continued safety for all Europe’s citizens."@cs¹ "Hr. formand! Siden starten af denne valgperiode har jeg arbejdet med flere betænkninger om sikkerhedsspørgsmål i transportsektoren. Jeg har bemærket, at vi hver gang synes at have nøjagtig den samme debat, uanset om betænkningen vedrører søhavne eller som her lufthavne og luftfart. De enkelte industrier står over for forskellige trusler, der kræver forskellige sikkerhedsforanstaltninger. Den betænkning, vi drøfter i dag, vil dog sandsynligvis have den største indvirkning på de europæiske borgeres sikkerhed. Jeg bifalder dette forslag generelt. Det er absolut nødvendigt at indføre klare sikkerhedsregler for alle Europas lufthavne. Jeg er imidlertid for mit eget vedkommende bekymret over nogle af foranstaltningerne. For det første forsøger Kommissionen i disse forslag at sikre sig flere beføjelser. Jeg tænker her på spørgsmålet om særlige sikkerhedsforanstaltninger. Disse normalt kortsigtede øgede sikkerhedsforanstaltninger baseret på oplysninger fra nationale efterretningstjenester bør ikke skulle godkendes af Kommissionen, inden de gennemføres. Kommissionen har ikke ret til at få udleveret efterretningsoplysninger, og det mener jeg heller ikke, at den bør have. Den kan derfor ikke udføre denne opgave effektivt. I visse situationer kunne en sådan beføjelse bringe selve sikkerheden i fare. Det er op til medlemsstaterne at afgøre, hvilke yderligere foranstaltninger, de anser for nødvendige. Kommissionens rolle er koordinerende og ikke dikterende. Spørgsmålet om sikkerhedsforanstaltninger om bord bør ikke være omfattet af denne forordning. Afgørelser om disse foranstaltninger bør træffes af de enkelte regeringer og de nationale luftfartsselskaber. Jeg er mest bekymret over det forslag, der er indeholdt i nogle af ændringsforslagene vedtaget i udvalget om at udvide Det Europæiske Luftfartssikkerhedsagenturs kompetenceområde til at omfatte tilsyn med sikkerheden. Da EASA i sin tid blev oprettet, var der almindelig enighed om, at agenturet skulle beskæftige sig med sikkerhedsspørgsmål og ikke have nogen indflydelse på tilsynet med sikkerheden. Jeg husker tydeligt de sproglige vanskeligheder, som denne definition gav anledning til for nogle sprogs vedkommende. EASA har ikke efterfølgende vist sig at være kompetent selv på dette område. Jeg kan på denne baggrund ikke se, hvorfor agenturet skulle have yderligere beføjelser. På trods af disse forbehold kan jeg godt se fordelene ved fælles sikkerhedsforanstaltninger i hele Unionen. I lyset af den øgede terrortrussel inden for luftfart skal og bør vi støtte forbedringer af sikkerheden. Med støtte fra en række kolleger har jeg stillet nogle ændringsforslag, der ikke blot imødegår mine bekymringer, men hele industriens bekymringer. Jeg håber, at vi kan nå til enighed om en brugbar løsning på disse spørgsmål. Vi har brug for fælles standarder og ikke streng lovgivning, hvis vi fortsat skal sikre alle europæiske borgeres sikkerhed."@da² ". Herr Präsident! Seit Beginn der Amtszeit dieses Parlaments war ich mit der Ausarbeitung mehrerer Berichte befasst, die Sicherheitsfragen im Verkehrssektor zum Gegenstand haben. Mir fällt auf, dass unsere Aussprachen bei jeder dieser Gelegenheiten nahezu identisch sind, ob der Bericht nun Seehäfen oder, wie in diesem Fall, Flughäfen und den Luftverkehr behandelt. Unterschiedliche Branchen sind unterschiedlichen Gefahren ausgesetzt, was unterschiedliche Sicherheitsmaßnahmen erforderlich macht. Der uns heute vorliegende Bericht wird jedoch mehr als alle anderen zur Sicherheit der Unionsbürger beitragen. Grundsätzlich begrüße ich dieses Vorhaben. Es bedarf dringend eindeutiger Sicherheitsvorschriften für alle europäischen Flughäfen. Einige der Maßnahmen rufen bei mir persönlich jedoch Bedenken hervor. Erstens ist die Kommission mit den uns vorliegenden Vorschlägen bestrebt, sich selbst mehr Befugnisse zu übertragen. Ich spreche hier von der Frage der besonderen Sicherheitsmaßnahmen. Diese im Normalfall für einen kurzen Zeitraum vorgesehene Erhöhung der Sicherheitsstufe aufgrund von nationalen nachrichtendienstlichen Erkenntnissen sollte keine vorherige Genehmigung durch die Kommission erforderlich machen. Die Kommission verfügt nicht über die Möglichkeiten für einen Informationsaustausch und sollte dies meiner Meinung nach auch nicht. Sie ist daher nicht in der Lage, diese Aufgabe ordnungsgemäß zu erfüllen. In einigen Fällen könnte diese besondere Stellung sogar eine Gefahr für die Sicherheit darstellen. Die Mitgliedstaaten müssen selbst über die zusätzlichen Maßnahmen befinden, die sie für notwendig erachten. Aufgabe der Kommission sollte es sein, zu koordinieren und nicht zu diktieren. Fragen der Sicherheit während des Flugs haben in dieser Verordnung nichts zu suchen. Auch hier sollten die einzelstaatlichen Regierungen und ihre nationalen Luftfahrtunternehmen über Maßnahmen befinden. Besondere Sorge bereitet mir der Vorschlag, der in einigen der im Ausschuss angenommenen Änderungsanträge enthalten ist, die Zuständigkeiten der Europäischen Agentur für Flugsicherheit um Sicherheitsbelange zu erweitern. Bei der Gründung der EASA hat man sich darauf geeinigt, dass sich die Agentur zwar mit Sicherheitsfragen befassen, nicht aber Einfluss auf die Sicherheit nehmen sollte. Ich erinnere mich noch gut daran, zu welchen Missverständnissen diese Definition in einigen Sprachen geführt hat. Seitdem hat die EASA nicht einmal in diesem Aufgabenbereich ihre Kompetenz unter Beweis stellen können. Es ist mir angesichts dieser Schwächen nicht begreiflich, warum ihr weitere Zuständigkeiten übertragen werden sollten. Trotz dieser Vorbehalte sehe ich die Vorteile gemeinsamer unionsweiter Sicherheitsstandards. Da der Luftverkehr heute einer größeren terroristischen Bedrohung ausgesetzt ist, müssen und sollten Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Sicherheit gefördert werden. Ich habe daher mit Unterstützung einiger Kollegen eine Reihe von Änderungsanträgen vorgelegt, die nicht nur meine Vorbehalte, sondern auch die Bedenken aller Betroffenen in dieser Branche widerspiegeln. Ich hoffe, wir können für diese Probleme eine praktikable Lösung finden. Es bedarf gemeinsamer Standards und nicht drakonischer Vorschriften, damit die Sicherheit aller Unionsbürger auch weiterhin gewährleistet werden kann."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, από την αρχή αυτού του Κοινοβουλίου εργάστηκα επί πολλών εκθέσεων που αφορούσαν θέματα ασφαλείας στον τομέα των μεταφορών. Παρατηρώ ότι σε κάθε περίπτωση διεξάγουμε ακριβώς τις ίδιες συζητήσεις, είτε η έκθεση ασχολείται με τους λιμένες, είτε, όπως σε αυτήν την περίπτωση, με τα αεροδρόμια και τις αερομεταφορές. Οι διαφορετικές βιομηχανίες αντιμετωπίζουν διαφορετικές απειλές που απαιτούν διαφορετικά μέτρα ασφαλείας. Ωστόσο, η ανά χείρας έκθεση θα έχει ίσως τη μεγαλύτερη επίδραση στην ασφάλεια των ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Γενικά, χαιρετίζω αυτήν την πρόταση. Οι σαφείς κανόνες για την ασφάλεια στα αεροδρόμια όλης της Ευρώπης είναι απολύτως απαραίτητοι. Ωστόσο –και εδώ μιλώ προσωπικά– έχω ορισμένες ανησυχίες σχετικά με κάποια από τα μέτρα. Πρώτον, στις υπό εξέταση προτάσεις, η Επιτροπή επιχειρεί να συσσωρεύσει περισσότερη ισχύ για την ίδια. Αναφέρομαι στο θέμα των ειδικών μέτρων ασφαλείας. Αυτές οι βραχυπρόθεσμες εν γένει αυξήσεις της ασφάλειας, σύμφωνα με τις εθνικές υπηρεσίες πληροφοριών, δεν θα έπρεπε να εγκριθούν από την Επιτροπή πριν εφαρμοστούν. Η Επιτροπή δεν έχει τον μηχανισμό της ανταλλαγής πληροφοριών, ούτε θα έπρεπε, κατά τη γνώμη μου. Κατά συνέπεια, δεν έχει τη δυνατότητα να εκτελέσει αυτό το έργο αποτελεσματικά. Σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις αυτή η συγκεκριμένη θέση μπορεί να θέσει σε κίνδυνο την ίδια την ασφάλεια. Τα κράτη μέλη είναι εκείνα που πρέπει να αποφασίσουν για το ποια περαιτέρω μέτρα θεωρούν απαραίτητα. Ο ρόλος της Επιτροπής θα πρέπει να είναι να συντονίζει και όχι να διατάζει. Το θέμα της ασφάλειας πτήσης δεν ανήκει σε αυτόν τον κανονισμό. Και πάλι, αυτά είναι μέτρα για τις μεμονωμένες κυβερνήσεις και τους αερομεταφορείς τους. Μεγαλύτερη ανησυχία μού προκαλεί η πρόταση που περιλαμβάνεται σε ορισμένες από τις τροπολογίες που εγκρίθηκαν στην επιτροπή για την επέκταση των αρμοδιοτήτων του Ευρωπαϊκού Οργανισμού Ασφάλειας της Αεροπορίας, ώστε να περιλαμβάνουν την ασφάλεια των αερομεταφορών. Όταν συστήθηκε αρχικά η EASA, συμφωνήθηκε γενικά ότι θα ασχολείται με θέματα ασφάλειας και δεν θα έχει καμία επιρροή στην ασφάλεια των αερομεταφορών. Θυμάμαι καλά τα προβλήματα που παρουσιάστηκαν σε ορισμένες γλώσσες λόγω αυτού του ορισμού. Από τότε η EASA δεν αποδείχθηκε ικανή, ούτε στον τομέα εργασίας της. Δεν καταλαβαίνω τον λόγο, δεδομένου ότι θα έπρεπε να δοθούν σε αυτήν και άλλες επιπλέον αρμοδιότητες. Παρά αυτές τις επιφυλάξεις, κατανοώ τα οφέλη των κοινών προδιαγραφών ασφαλείας σε όλη την Ένωση. Με την εντεινόμενη τρομοκρατική απειλή στις αερομεταφορές σήμερα, οι βελτιώσεις στην ασφάλεια πρέπει και θα μπορούσαν να ενθαρρυνθούν. Συνεπώς, με την υποστήριξη αρκετών συναδέλφων, κατέθεσα ορισμένες τροπολογίες όχι μόνο για να καλυφθούν οι δικές μου ανησυχίες, αλλά και οι ανησυχίες όλων στον τομέα αυτόν. Ελπίζω ότι θα μπορέσουμε να επιτύχουμε μια εφαρμόσιμη λύση σε αυτά τα θέματα. Απαιτούνται κοινές προδιαγραφές και όχι δρακόντειος κανονισμός για τη συνεχή ασφάλεια όλων των ευρωπαίων πολιτών."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, desde el comienzo de este Parlamento he trabajado en varios informes relacionados con cuestiones de seguridad en el sector del transporte. Me he dado cuenta de que parece que siempre mantenemos exactamente los mismos debates, independientemente de que el informe hable de puertos de mar o, como en este caso, de aeropuertos y aviación. Los diferentes sectores se enfrentan a diferentes amenazas, que exigen diferentes medidas de seguridad. No obstante, el informe que tenemos hoy ante nosotros probablemente sea el que más afecte a la seguridad de los ciudadanos de Europa. En general, acojo con satisfacción esta propuesta. Unas normas claras para la seguridad en todos los aeropuertos de Europa son absolutamente necesarias. Sin embargo, a mí personalmente me preocupan algunas de las medidas. En primer lugar, en las propuestas que tenemos ante nosotros, la Comisión intenta acumular más competencias para sí misma. Me refiero a la cuestión de las medidas de seguridad especiales. En general, esos incrementos de las medidas de seguridad a corto plazo, basados en la inteligencia nacional, no deberían tener que ser aprobados por la Comisión antes de ser aplicados. La Comisión no tiene capacidad para compartir la información de inteligencia, ni debería tenerla, en mi opinión. Por lo tanto, no tiene capacidad para llevar a cabo esa tarea de forma efectiva. En algunos casos, esa posición en particular podría perjudicar a la propia seguridad. Corresponde a los Estados miembros decidir las medidas extraordinarias que consideren necesarias. El papel de la Comisión deberá ser el de coordinar, no el de dirigir. El tema de la seguridad durante el vuelo no es objeto de este reglamento. Una vez más, esas medidas incumben a los Gobiernos y a sus propias aerolíneas. Mi mayor preocupación es la propuesta contenida en algunas de las enmiendas aprobadas en la comisión con vistas a ampliar las competencias de la Agencia Europea de Seguridad Aérea para incluir la seguridad. Cuando se creó originalmente la AESA, en general se acordó que se encargaría de cuestiones de seguridad aérea en el aspecto técnico, sin tener ninguna influencia sobre la seguridad en otros aspectos. Recuerdo bien los problemas que causa esa definición en algunas lenguas. Desde entonces, la AESA no ha hecho gala de su competencia, ni siquiera en este ámbito de trabajo. Por lo tanto, dado ese fracaso, no veo por qué se le deberían atribuir otras competencias. A pesar de estas reservas, considero que unas normas de seguridad comunes en toda la Unión Europea resultarían beneficiosas. Con el actual aumento de la amenaza terrorista para la aviación conviene fomentar las mejoras en materia de seguridad. Así pues, con el apoyo de unos cuantos colegas, he presentado algunas enmiendas que no solamente se refieren a mis preocupaciones, sino también a las de todo el sector. Espero que podamos conseguir una solución factible para estas cuestiones. Las normas comunes, no unos reglamentos excesivamente severos, son necesarias para la seguridad constante de todos los ciudadanos europeos."@es²⁰ "Mr President, since the start of this Parliament I have worked on several reports dealing with security issues in the transport sector. I notice that on each occasion we seem to have exactly the same debates, whether the report deals with seaports or, as in this case, airports and aviation. Different industries face different threats necessitating different security measures. However, the report in front of us today is one that will probably have the greatest impact on the safety of Europe’s citizens. In general I welcome this proposal. Clear rules for security across Europe’s airports are absolutely necessary. However – and here I speak personally – I have some concerns about some of the measures. Firstly, within the proposals before us, the Commission attempts to accrue more power for itself. What I refer to is the issue of special security measures. Those generally short-term increases in security, based on national intelligence, should not have to be approved by the Commission before being implemented. The Commission does not have the facility of intelligence-sharing, nor should it have, in my opinion. Therefore it does not have the ability to carry out that task effectively. In some cases that particular position could jeopardise security itself. It is for Member States to decide on what extra measures they deem necessary. The Commission’s role should be to coordinate, not to dictate. The issue of in-flight security does not belong in this regulation. Again, those are measures for individual governments and their own air carriers. My greatest concern is the proposal contained in some of the amendments adopted in committee to extend the competences of the European Aviation Safety Agency to take on security. When the EASA was originally set up, it was generally agreed that it would deal with safety issues and have no influence on security. I remember well the problems caused in some languages by that definition. Since then the EASA has not proved itself competent, even in this area of work. I do not see why, given that failing, extra powers should be given to it. Despite these reservations I see the benefits of common security standards across the Union. With the heightened terrorist threat to aviation today, improvements in security must and should be encouraged. Thus, with the support of a number of colleagues, I have tabled some amendments that not only address my concerns but all of those across the industry. I hope we can achieve a workable solution to these issues. Common standards, not draconian regulation, are required for the continued safety for all Europe’s citizens."@et⁵ ". Arvoisa puhemies, olen ollut mukana laatimassa useita kuljetusalan turvaamista koskevia mietintöjä tämän parlamenttikauden aikana. Olen huomannut, että joka kerta käymme tämän saman keskustelun koskipa mietintö sitten merisatamia tai kuten tässä tapauksessa lentokenttiä ja ilmailua. Eri toimialoilla on erilaisia uhkia, ja ne tarvitsevat siten erilaisia turvaamistoimenpiteitä. Tänään käsittelyssämme oleva mietintö on luultavasti kuitenkin mietintö, jolla on suurin vaikutus Euroopan unionin kansalaisten turvallisuuteen. Yleisesti ottaen suhtaudun myönteisesti tähän ehdotukseen. Selkeät turvallisuussäännöt kaikilla Euroopan unionin lentokentillä ovat ehdottoman tärkeitä. Olen kuitenkin itse henkilökohtaisesti hieman huolestunut joistain toimenpiteistä. Ensinnäkin tämän ehdotuksen avulla komissio pyrkii haalimaan itselleen enemmän valtaa. Viittaan erityisiin turvaamistoimiin, jotka ovat yleensä lyhytaikaisia turvaamistoimenpiteiden lisäyksiä. Ne perustuvat kansallisiin tiedustelutietoihin, eikä niitä pitäisi tarvita hyväksyttää komissiolla ennen täytäntöönpanoa. Komissiolla ei ole mahdollisuutta jakaa tiedustelutietoja, eikä sillä minun mielestäni pitäisikään olla. Se ei siten kykene suoriutumaan tehtävästä tehokkaasti. Joissain tapauksissa tällainen erityistilanne voi itsessään vaarantaa turvallisuuden. Jäsenvaltioiden on saatava päättää, mitä ylimääräisiä toimenpiteitä ne pitävät tarpeellisina. Komission tehtävänä on koordinoida, ei määrätä. Turvallisuutta lentojen aikana koskeva kysymys ei kuulu tähän asetukseen. Nämä ovat jälleen toimenpiteitä, jotka kuuluvat yksittäisille hallituksille ja heidän lentoyhtiöilleen. Suurin huoleni on joihinkin valiokunnassa hyväksyttyihin tarkistuksiin sisältyvä ehdotus, jonka mukaan Euroopan lentoturvallisuusviraston toimivaltaa olisi laajennettava turvaamisen alalle. Kun EASA alun perin perustettiin, sovittiin yleisesti, että se huolehtii turvallisuusasioista eikä sillä ole valtaa turvaamisasioissa. Muistan hyvin määrittelyongelmat, jotka tulivat esiin joissain kielissä. Siitä lähtien EASA ei ole kuitenkaan osoittautunut päteväksi turvallisuusasioissa. En tiedä, miksi sen valtaoikeuksia pitäisi näin ollen lisätä. Epäluuloistani huolimatta ymmärrän yhteisten turvallisuusstandardien edut koko Euroopan unionille. Ilmailussa kasvaneen terrorisminuhkan myötä olisi ja onkin rohkaistava turvaamisen parantamiseen. Olenkin siis useiden kollegoideni tukemana tehnyt joitain tarkistuksia, joissa ei käsitellä ainoastaan minun vaan koko toimialan huolenaiheita. Toivon, että voimme saavuttaa toimivan ratkaisun näihin kysymyksiin. Jatkuvan turvallisuuden takaaminen kaikille Euroopan unionin kansalaisille edellyttää yhteisiä standardeja, ei ankaraa sääntelyä."@fi⁷ ". Monsieur le Président, j’ai eu l’occasion, depuis le début de cette législature, de travailler sur plusieurs rapports liés aux questions de sécurité dans le secteur des transports. Je vois ressurgir à chaque fois les mêmes débats, que le rapport concerne les ports maritimes ou, comme dans ce cas-ci, les aéroports et l’aviation. Chaque industrie doit faire face à des menaces différentes nécessitant des mesures de sécurité différentes. Néanmoins, le rapport qui nous est présenté aujourd’hui sera probablement celui qui aura le plus grand impact sur la sécurité des citoyens européens. Globalement, j’approuve cette proposition. L’instauration de règles de sûreté précises dans les aéroports européens est une nécessité absolue. Pourtant, et je réagis ici à titre personnel, j’ai quelques doutes quant à certaines des mesures proposées. Tout d’abord, via ces propositions, la Commission tente d’accroître ses propres pouvoirs. J’évoque ici la question des mesures spéciales de sûreté. Ces pics de sûreté à court terme, qui s’appuient sur les services de renseignement nationaux, n’auraient pas dû être approuvés par la Commission avant leur mise en œuvre. La Commission ne dispose d’aucun service d’échange de renseignements, à juste titre selon moi. Elle n’est donc pas en mesure de remplir cette tâche efficacement. Dans certains cas, cette position pourrait même porter préjudice à la sûreté aérienne. Il appartient aux États membres d’adopter les mesures supplémentaires qui leur semblent nécessaires. La Commission doit coordonner, pas dicter sa loi. La question de la sûreté en vol n’a pas sa place dans cette réglementation. Encore une fois, la responsabilité de ces mesures incombe aux gouvernements nationaux et à leurs transporteurs aériens. Ma principale préoccupation concerne certains amendements que la commission a adoptés afin d’élargir les compétences de l’Agence européenne de la sécurité aérienne en matière de sûreté. Lorsque l’AESE a été créée, il a été convenu qu’elle s’occuperait des questions de sécurité et n’aurait aucune influence sur la sûreté. Je me rappelle parfaitement les problèmes posés par cette définition dans certaines langues. Depuis lors, l’AESE s’est avérée incompétente, même dans son domaine d’action. Je ne vois pas pourquoi, à la lumière de cet échec, il conviendrait de lui conférer des pouvoirs supplémentaires. En dépit des réserves que je viens de formuler, j’ai conscience des avantages de normes de sûreté communes dans toute l’Union. Face à la menace terroriste grandissante dans le secteur de l’aviation, une amélioration de la sûreté est nécessaire et doit être encouragée. C’est pourquoi j’ai déposé, avec le soutien de plusieurs collègues, quelques amendements qui répondent à mes préoccupations et à celles de toutes les personnes impliquées dans ce secteur. J’espère que nous pourrons trouver une solution adéquate à ces questions. La sécurité permanente de tous les citoyens européens exige des normes communes, pas une réglementation draconienne."@fr⁸ "Mr President, since the start of this Parliament I have worked on several reports dealing with security issues in the transport sector. I notice that on each occasion we seem to have exactly the same debates, whether the report deals with seaports or, as in this case, airports and aviation. Different industries face different threats necessitating different security measures. However, the report in front of us today is one that will probably have the greatest impact on the safety of Europe’s citizens. In general I welcome this proposal. Clear rules for security across Europe’s airports are absolutely necessary. However – and here I speak personally – I have some concerns about some of the measures. Firstly, within the proposals before us, the Commission attempts to accrue more power for itself. What I refer to is the issue of special security measures. Those generally short-term increases in security, based on national intelligence, should not have to be approved by the Commission before being implemented. The Commission does not have the facility of intelligence-sharing, nor should it have, in my opinion. Therefore it does not have the ability to carry out that task effectively. In some cases that particular position could jeopardise security itself. It is for Member States to decide on what extra measures they deem necessary. The Commission’s role should be to coordinate, not to dictate. The issue of in-flight security does not belong in this regulation. Again, those are measures for individual governments and their own air carriers. My greatest concern is the proposal contained in some of the amendments adopted in committee to extend the competences of the European Aviation Safety Agency to take on security. When the EASA was originally set up, it was generally agreed that it would deal with safety issues and have no influence on security. I remember well the problems caused in some languages by that definition. Since then the EASA has not proved itself competent, even in this area of work. I do not see why, given that failing, extra powers should be given to it. Despite these reservations I see the benefits of common security standards across the Union. With the heightened terrorist threat to aviation today, improvements in security must and should be encouraged. Thus, with the support of a number of colleagues, I have tabled some amendments that not only address my concerns but all of those across the industry. I hope we can achieve a workable solution to these issues. Common standards, not draconian regulation, are required for the continued safety for all Europe’s citizens."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, dall’inizio di questa legislatura ho lavorato a molte relazioni sul tema della sicurezza nel settore dei trasporti e ogni volta mi sembra che ripetiamo esattamente le stesse discussioni, sia che la relazione tratti di porti marittimi, sia che riguardi, come in questo caso, gli aeroporti e l’aviazione. I vari settori devono però far fronte a minacce differenti, che richiedono misure di sicurezza diverse. Tuttavia, la relazione di cui discutiamo oggi avrà probabilmente il massimo effetto sulla sicurezza dei cittadini d’Europa. In generale, accolgo con favore la proposta. Sono assolutamente necessarie norme chiare per la sicurezza negli aeroporti d’Europa. Nutro, tuttavia, qualche preoccupazione – e qui parlo a titolo personale – riguardo ad alcune delle misure. In primo luogo, nelle proposte all’esame la Commissione tenta di accrescere il proprio potere. Mi riferisco alle misure di sicurezza speciali. I potenziamenti generalmente a breve termine della sicurezza, basati sull’ nazionale, non dovrebbero essere soggetti all’approvazione della Commissione prima di essere attuati. La Commissione non ha la possibilità di condividere i dati di né dovrebbe averla, a mio parere. Perciò non ha la capacità di svolgere in modo efficace tale compito. In alcuni casi quella particolare posizione potrebbe mettere in pericolo la sicurezza stessa. Spetta agli Stati membri decidere quali misure aggiuntive ritengono necessarie. Il ruolo della Commissione dovrebbe essere di coordinamento, non di comando. Il tema della sicurezza in volo non rientra in questo regolamento. Anche in questo caso, si tratta di misure che dipendono dai singoli governi e dai rispettivi vettori aerei. La mia massima preoccupazione riguarda la proposta contenuta in alcuni degli emendamenti adottati in sede di commissione al fine di ampliare le competenze dell’Agenzia europea per la sicurezza aerea includendovi il controllo della sicurezza. Quando era stata istituita l’Agenzia europea per la sicurezza aerea, si era generalmente convenuto che si sarebbe occupata di sicurezza tecnica e non avrebbe avuto alcuna influenza sulle misure di sicurezza. Ricordo bene i problemi causati da quella definizione in alcune lingue. Da allora l’Agenzia non si è dimostrata competente, neppure in quest’area di lavoro. Non vedo perché, data questa sua mancanza, le si dovrebbero attribuire poteri più ampi. Nonostante queste riserve, riconosco i benefici derivanti da norme comuni per la sicurezza in tutta l’Unione. Con l’aggravarsi della minaccia di atti terroristici contro l’aviazione, è necessario e opportuno favorire i miglioramenti della sicurezza. Con l’appoggio di alcuni colleghi, ho quindi presentato alcuni emendamenti che non solo rispondono alle mie preoccupazioni, ma anche a tutte quelle dell’intero settore. Spero che potremo trovare una soluzione realizzabile a tali questioni. Per la costante sicurezza di tutti i cittadini d’Europa sono necessarie norme comuni, non regolamenti draconiani."@it¹² "Mr President, since the start of this Parliament I have worked on several reports dealing with security issues in the transport sector. I notice that on each occasion we seem to have exactly the same debates, whether the report deals with seaports or, as in this case, airports and aviation. Different industries face different threats necessitating different security measures. However, the report in front of us today is one that will probably have the greatest impact on the safety of Europe’s citizens. In general I welcome this proposal. Clear rules for security across Europe’s airports are absolutely necessary. However – and here I speak personally – I have some concerns about some of the measures. Firstly, within the proposals before us, the Commission attempts to accrue more power for itself. What I refer to is the issue of special security measures. Those generally short-term increases in security, based on national intelligence, should not have to be approved by the Commission before being implemented. The Commission does not have the facility of intelligence-sharing, nor should it have, in my opinion. Therefore it does not have the ability to carry out that task effectively. In some cases that particular position could jeopardise security itself. It is for Member States to decide on what extra measures they deem necessary. The Commission’s role should be to coordinate, not to dictate. The issue of in-flight security does not belong in this regulation. Again, those are measures for individual governments and their own air carriers. My greatest concern is the proposal contained in some of the amendments adopted in committee to extend the competences of the European Aviation Safety Agency to take on security. When the EASA was originally set up, it was generally agreed that it would deal with safety issues and have no influence on security. I remember well the problems caused in some languages by that definition. Since then the EASA has not proved itself competent, even in this area of work. I do not see why, given that failing, extra powers should be given to it. Despite these reservations I see the benefits of common security standards across the Union. With the heightened terrorist threat to aviation today, improvements in security must and should be encouraged. Thus, with the support of a number of colleagues, I have tabled some amendments that not only address my concerns but all of those across the industry. I hope we can achieve a workable solution to these issues. Common standards, not draconian regulation, are required for the continued safety for all Europe’s citizens."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, since the start of this Parliament I have worked on several reports dealing with security issues in the transport sector. I notice that on each occasion we seem to have exactly the same debates, whether the report deals with seaports or, as in this case, airports and aviation. Different industries face different threats necessitating different security measures. However, the report in front of us today is one that will probably have the greatest impact on the safety of Europe’s citizens. In general I welcome this proposal. Clear rules for security across Europe’s airports are absolutely necessary. However – and here I speak personally – I have some concerns about some of the measures. Firstly, within the proposals before us, the Commission attempts to accrue more power for itself. What I refer to is the issue of special security measures. Those generally short-term increases in security, based on national intelligence, should not have to be approved by the Commission before being implemented. The Commission does not have the facility of intelligence-sharing, nor should it have, in my opinion. Therefore it does not have the ability to carry out that task effectively. In some cases that particular position could jeopardise security itself. It is for Member States to decide on what extra measures they deem necessary. The Commission’s role should be to coordinate, not to dictate. The issue of in-flight security does not belong in this regulation. Again, those are measures for individual governments and their own air carriers. My greatest concern is the proposal contained in some of the amendments adopted in committee to extend the competences of the European Aviation Safety Agency to take on security. When the EASA was originally set up, it was generally agreed that it would deal with safety issues and have no influence on security. I remember well the problems caused in some languages by that definition. Since then the EASA has not proved itself competent, even in this area of work. I do not see why, given that failing, extra powers should be given to it. Despite these reservations I see the benefits of common security standards across the Union. With the heightened terrorist threat to aviation today, improvements in security must and should be encouraged. Thus, with the support of a number of colleagues, I have tabled some amendments that not only address my concerns but all of those across the industry. I hope we can achieve a workable solution to these issues. Common standards, not draconian regulation, are required for the continued safety for all Europe’s citizens."@lv¹³ "Mr President, since the start of this Parliament I have worked on several reports dealing with security issues in the transport sector. I notice that on each occasion we seem to have exactly the same debates, whether the report deals with seaports or, as in this case, airports and aviation. Different industries face different threats necessitating different security measures. However, the report in front of us today is one that will probably have the greatest impact on the safety of Europe’s citizens. In general I welcome this proposal. Clear rules for security across Europe’s airports are absolutely necessary. However – and here I speak personally – I have some concerns about some of the measures. Firstly, within the proposals before us, the Commission attempts to accrue more power for itself. What I refer to is the issue of special security measures. Those generally short-term increases in security, based on national intelligence, should not have to be approved by the Commission before being implemented. The Commission does not have the facility of intelligence-sharing, nor should it have, in my opinion. Therefore it does not have the ability to carry out that task effectively. In some cases that particular position could jeopardise security itself. It is for Member States to decide on what extra measures they deem necessary. The Commission’s role should be to coordinate, not to dictate. The issue of in-flight security does not belong in this regulation. Again, those are measures for individual governments and their own air carriers. My greatest concern is the proposal contained in some of the amendments adopted in committee to extend the competences of the European Aviation Safety Agency to take on security. When the EASA was originally set up, it was generally agreed that it would deal with safety issues and have no influence on security. I remember well the problems caused in some languages by that definition. Since then the EASA has not proved itself competent, even in this area of work. I do not see why, given that failing, extra powers should be given to it. Despite these reservations I see the benefits of common security standards across the Union. With the heightened terrorist threat to aviation today, improvements in security must and should be encouraged. Thus, with the support of a number of colleagues, I have tabled some amendments that not only address my concerns but all of those across the industry. I hope we can achieve a workable solution to these issues. Common standards, not draconian regulation, are required for the continued safety for all Europe’s citizens."@mt¹⁵ ". Mijnheer de Voorzitter, sinds het begin van deze zittingsperiode van het Parlement heb ik gewerkt aan diverse verslagen over veiligheidskwesties in de vervoerssector. Het valt mij op dat we bij iedere gelegenheid precies dezelfde debatten lijken te voeren, of het nu over havens of, zoals in dit geval, over vliegvelden en luchtvaart gaat. Verschillende sectoren worden geconfronteerd met verschillende bedreigingen, die verschillende veiligheidsmaatregelen vergen. Het verslag dat vandaag echter aan ons voorligt zal waarschijnlijk de grootste invloed hebben op de veiligheid van de Europese burgers. Over het algemeen juich ik dit voorstel toe. Het is absoluut noodzakelijk om op alle Europese luchthavens te beschikken over duidelijke regels op het vlak van beveiliging. Maar – en ik spreek hier op persoonlijke titel – ik maak me wel zorgen over een aantal van deze maatregelen. Ten eerste probeert de Commissie in het onderhavige voorstel meer macht naar zich toe te trekken. Ik doel hiermee op de kwestie van de speciale beveiligingsmaatregelen. Dergelijke, over het algemeen kortdurende verhogingen van het beveiligingsniveau, die gebaseerd zijn op nationale inlichtingen, zouden niet door de Commissie goedgekeurd hoeven worden alvorens ten uitvoer te worden gelegd. De Commissie heeft namelijk niet de mogelijkheid inlichtingen te delen, noch zou zij die mogelijkheid mijns inziens moeten krijgen. Daarom is zij niet in staat die taak op doeltreffende wijze te vervullen. In bepaalde gevallen zou die specifieke positie de veiligheid zelfs in gevaar kunnen brengen. Het is aan de lidstaten om te besluiten welke extra maatregelen zij noodzakelijk achten. De Commissie moet coördineren, niet dicteren. Het onderwerp "veiligheid aan boord" hoort niet thuis in deze verordening. Nogmaals, het nemen van dergelijke maatregelen is voorbehouden aan individuele regeringen en hun nationale luchtvaartmaatschappijen. Mijn belangrijkste punt van zorg is het voorstel dat is vervat in een aantal amendementen dat in de commissie is aangenomen en waarmee wordt beoogd de bevoegdheden van het Europees Agentschap voor de veiligheid van de luchtvaart (EASA) uit te breiden naar het vlak van beveiliging. Toen de EASA werd opgericht, bestond er algemene overeenstemming over dat het agentschap zich zou gaan bezighouden met veiligheidskwesties en geen invloed zou hebben op de beveiliging. Ik herinner me de problemen die in sommige talen ontstonden vanwege die definitie nog goed. Sindsdien is gebleken dat de EASA tekortschiet, zelfs op dit werkterrein. Met het oog op die tekortkomingen begrijp ik niet waarom het agentschap extra bevoegdheden zou moet krijgen. Ondanks mijn bedenkingen zie ik ook wel de voordelen van gemeenschappelijke beveiligingsnormen in de gehele Unie. Gezien de actuele, verhoogde terroristische dreiging voor de luchtvaart moeten verbeteringen in de beveiliging worden aangemoedigd. Daarom heb ik met steun van een aantal collega's enkele amendementen ingediend waarmee niet alleen aan mijn bezorgdheid tegemoet wordt gekomen, maar aan die van iedereen in de sector. Ik hoop dat we met betrekking tot deze kwesties tot een werkbare oplossing kunnen komen. Om de veiligheid van alle Europese burgers te kunnen blijven waarborgen, hebben we gemeenschappelijke normen nodig in plaats van draconische regelgeving."@nl³ "Mr President, since the start of this Parliament I have worked on several reports dealing with security issues in the transport sector. I notice that on each occasion we seem to have exactly the same debates, whether the report deals with seaports or, as in this case, airports and aviation. Different industries face different threats necessitating different security measures. However, the report in front of us today is one that will probably have the greatest impact on the safety of Europe’s citizens. In general I welcome this proposal. Clear rules for security across Europe’s airports are absolutely necessary. However – and here I speak personally – I have some concerns about some of the measures. Firstly, within the proposals before us, the Commission attempts to accrue more power for itself. What I refer to is the issue of special security measures. Those generally short-term increases in security, based on national intelligence, should not have to be approved by the Commission before being implemented. The Commission does not have the facility of intelligence-sharing, nor should it have, in my opinion. Therefore it does not have the ability to carry out that task effectively. In some cases that particular position could jeopardise security itself. It is for Member States to decide on what extra measures they deem necessary. The Commission’s role should be to coordinate, not to dictate. The issue of in-flight security does not belong in this regulation. Again, those are measures for individual governments and their own air carriers. My greatest concern is the proposal contained in some of the amendments adopted in committee to extend the competences of the European Aviation Safety Agency to take on security. When the EASA was originally set up, it was generally agreed that it would deal with safety issues and have no influence on security. I remember well the problems caused in some languages by that definition. Since then the EASA has not proved itself competent, even in this area of work. I do not see why, given that failing, extra powers should be given to it. Despite these reservations I see the benefits of common security standards across the Union. With the heightened terrorist threat to aviation today, improvements in security must and should be encouraged. Thus, with the support of a number of colleagues, I have tabled some amendments that not only address my concerns but all of those across the industry. I hope we can achieve a workable solution to these issues. Common standards, not draconian regulation, are required for the continued safety for all Europe’s citizens."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, tenho colaborado desde o início deste Parlamento em vários relatórios sobre questões de segurança no sector dos transportes. Constato que em todas essas ocasiões parecemos travar exactamente os mesmos debates, quer o relatório diga respeito aos portos marítimos ou, como neste caso, aos aeroportos e à aviação. Porém, o relatório que nos é aqui apresentado hoje é talvez o que terá mais impacto na segurança dos cidadãos da Europa. De um modo geral, congratulo-me com a presente proposta. São absolutamente indispensáveis em todos os aeroportos da Europa regras claras em matéria de segurança. Porém (e neste ponto falo em meu nome pessoal), algumas das medidas suscitam-me alguma preocupação. Em primeiro lugar, nas propostas que nos são aqui apresentadas, a Comissão tenta aumentar os seus poderes. Refiro-me à questão das medidas especiais de segurança. Estas melhorias da segurança a curto prazo, geralmente baseadas nos serviços de informação nacionais, não deveriam ser obrigatoriamente aprovadas pela Comissão antes de serem aplicadas. A Comissão não tem nem deverá ter, em minha opinião, estruturas de partilha da informação. Portanto, não tem capacidade para desempenhar eficazmente esta tarefa. Nalguns casos, essa situação específica poderia comprometer a própria segurança. Compete aos Estados-Membros decidirem quais são as medidas suplementares que consideram necessárias. O papel da Comissão deve consistir em coordenar, e não em ditar medidas. A questão da segurança durante o voo não deveria constar do presente regulamento. Essas medidas são mais uma vez da competência dos governos individuais e das suas próprias transportadoras aéreas. A minha maior preocupação é a proposta de alargamento das competências da Agência Europeia de Segurança da Aviação, que passaria a ser responsável pela segurança (na vertente "security"), tal como consta de algumas das alterações aprovadas em comissão. Quando a AESA foi criada, chegou-se a acordo em que seria responsável pelas questões de segurança na vertente "safety" e que não teria influência na segurança na vertente "security". Recordo bem os problemas causados nalgumas línguas por essa definição. Entretanto a AESA não deu provas de competência, nem sequer na sua área de trabalho, pelo que não vejo razões para que, atendendo a essa falha, lhe sejam atribuídas competências suplementares. Apesar destas reservas, reconheço os benefícios da existência de normas de segurança comuns em toda a União. Perante o risco acrescido de atentados terroristas no sector da aviação que se coloca actualmente, a melhoria da segurança pode e deve ser promovida. Portanto, com o apoio de alguns colegas, apresentei algumas alterações que dão resposta não só às minhas preocupações, como também às do sector. Espero que possamos encontrar uma solução viável para estas questões. São necessárias normas comuns, e não um regulamento draconiano, para garantir continuamente a segurança dos cidadãos da Europa."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, since the start of this Parliament I have worked on several reports dealing with security issues in the transport sector. I notice that on each occasion we seem to have exactly the same debates, whether the report deals with seaports or, as in this case, airports and aviation. Different industries face different threats necessitating different security measures. However, the report in front of us today is one that will probably have the greatest impact on the safety of Europe’s citizens. In general I welcome this proposal. Clear rules for security across Europe’s airports are absolutely necessary. However – and here I speak personally – I have some concerns about some of the measures. Firstly, within the proposals before us, the Commission attempts to accrue more power for itself. What I refer to is the issue of special security measures. Those generally short-term increases in security, based on national intelligence, should not have to be approved by the Commission before being implemented. The Commission does not have the facility of intelligence-sharing, nor should it have, in my opinion. Therefore it does not have the ability to carry out that task effectively. In some cases that particular position could jeopardise security itself. It is for Member States to decide on what extra measures they deem necessary. The Commission’s role should be to coordinate, not to dictate. The issue of in-flight security does not belong in this regulation. Again, those are measures for individual governments and their own air carriers. My greatest concern is the proposal contained in some of the amendments adopted in committee to extend the competences of the European Aviation Safety Agency to take on security. When the EASA was originally set up, it was generally agreed that it would deal with safety issues and have no influence on security. I remember well the problems caused in some languages by that definition. Since then the EASA has not proved itself competent, even in this area of work. I do not see why, given that failing, extra powers should be given to it. Despite these reservations I see the benefits of common security standards across the Union. With the heightened terrorist threat to aviation today, improvements in security must and should be encouraged. Thus, with the support of a number of colleagues, I have tabled some amendments that not only address my concerns but all of those across the industry. I hope we can achieve a workable solution to these issues. Common standards, not draconian regulation, are required for the continued safety for all Europe’s citizens."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, since the start of this Parliament I have worked on several reports dealing with security issues in the transport sector. I notice that on each occasion we seem to have exactly the same debates, whether the report deals with seaports or, as in this case, airports and aviation. Different industries face different threats necessitating different security measures. However, the report in front of us today is one that will probably have the greatest impact on the safety of Europe’s citizens. In general I welcome this proposal. Clear rules for security across Europe’s airports are absolutely necessary. However – and here I speak personally – I have some concerns about some of the measures. Firstly, within the proposals before us, the Commission attempts to accrue more power for itself. What I refer to is the issue of special security measures. Those generally short-term increases in security, based on national intelligence, should not have to be approved by the Commission before being implemented. The Commission does not have the facility of intelligence-sharing, nor should it have, in my opinion. Therefore it does not have the ability to carry out that task effectively. In some cases that particular position could jeopardise security itself. It is for Member States to decide on what extra measures they deem necessary. The Commission’s role should be to coordinate, not to dictate. The issue of in-flight security does not belong in this regulation. Again, those are measures for individual governments and their own air carriers. My greatest concern is the proposal contained in some of the amendments adopted in committee to extend the competences of the European Aviation Safety Agency to take on security. When the EASA was originally set up, it was generally agreed that it would deal with safety issues and have no influence on security. I remember well the problems caused in some languages by that definition. Since then the EASA has not proved itself competent, even in this area of work. I do not see why, given that failing, extra powers should be given to it. Despite these reservations I see the benefits of common security standards across the Union. With the heightened terrorist threat to aviation today, improvements in security must and should be encouraged. Thus, with the support of a number of colleagues, I have tabled some amendments that not only address my concerns but all of those across the industry. I hope we can achieve a workable solution to these issues. Common standards, not draconian regulation, are required for the continued safety for all Europe’s citizens."@sl¹⁹ ". Herr talman! Sedan den nuvarande mandatperioden inleddes har jag arbetat på ett flertal betänkanden om säkerhetsfrågor inom transportsektorn. Jag har noterat att vi alltid har exakt samma debatter, vare sig betänkandet handlar om hamnar eller, som i detta fall, flygplatser och luftfart. Olika industrier ställs inför olika hot som gör olika säkerhetsåtgärder nödvändiga. Men det betänkande som vi har framför oss i dag kommer förmodligen att påverka säkerheten för Europas medborgare i hög grad. Jag välkomnar i stort detta förslag. Det är absolut nödvändigt med tydliga regler för säkerheten på Europas flygplatser. Jag ser dock – och detta är min personliga uppfattning – vissa bekymmer med några av åtgärderna. För det första försöker kommissionen att skaffa sig mer makt i det förslag som vi har framför oss. Det jag hänvisar till är frågan om särskilda säkerhetsåtgärder. Dessa i allmänhet kortsiktiga säkerhetshöjningar, som grundas på nationell information, bör inte behöva kommissionens godkännande innan de genomförs. Kommissionen har inte något system för att dela information, och enligt min uppfattning bör den inte heller ha det. Därför har man inte möjlighet att utföra denna uppgift effektivt. Just denna ställning skulle i vissa fall kunna äventyra själva säkerheten. Det är upp till medlemsstaterna att besluta om extra åtgärder. Kommissionens roll bör vara att samordna, inte föreskriva. Frågan om inrikesflygets säkerhet hör inte hemma i denna förordning. Det rör sig återigen om åtgärder för enskilda regeringar och deras egna lufttrafikföretag. Mitt största bekymmer är förslaget som ingår i några av de ändringsförslag som antagits i utskottet om utökning av befogenheterna för Europeiska byrån för luftfartssäkerhet till att innefatta säkerhet. När byrån för luftfartssäkerhet ursprungligen inrättades enades man allmänt om att den skulle hantera frågor som rör trygghet, och inte ha något inflytande på säkerheten. Jag minns tydligt de problem som denna definition orsakade i vissa språk. Sedan dess har byrån för luftfartssäkerhet inte visat sig vara kompetent ens på detta arbetsområde. Jag förstår inte varför den ska få extra befogenheter, med tanke på detta misslyckande. Jag ser trots dessa reservationer fördelarna med gemensamma säkerhetsnormer i hela unionen. I och med det ökade terrorhotet mot luftfarten i dag måste och bör förbättringar inom säkerheten uppmuntras. Jag har alltså, med stöd av ett antal kolleger, lagt fram några ändringsförslag, i vilka inte bara föremålen för min oro tas upp, utan föremålen för allas oro inom denna industri. Jag hoppas att vi kan finna en genomförbar lösning på dessa frågor. För den fortsatta säkerheten för alla EU:s medborgare krävs gemensamma normer, inte en drakonisk lagstiftning."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Philip Bradbourn,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "intelligence"¹² "on behalf of the PPE-DE Group"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4}