Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-29-Speech-4-119"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011129.2.4-119"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
No one is against stepping up security in airports and on aeroplanes. The problem, however, and concern about this is expressed in the justification for an amendment, is that the events “of 11 September in the United States have proven that the liberalisation of airport services (...) made the strict implementation of security measures more difficult”.
The privatisation of these services and its implications for the quest for profit, for high returns and for the exploitation of a work force with precarious contracts, does not make for effective security. Forcing civil aviation operators and the largest among them, the companies running airports and the airlines, not only to comply with long-standing security measures but also to bear the costs of these themselves would be a straightforward matter. Instead, the rapporteur concludes that it is up to the States to bear these costs and that even if private interests prove to be irresponsible, incapable of providing security worthy of its name, they nonetheless have the right to make profit and as a bonus, to be subsidised by States, in other words, by the general public.
This shows utter disregard for everyone. This is why, by voting for further security in the aviation sector, we are condemning this new excuse to subsidise private interests from private funds. We have, therefore, voted against this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples