Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-13-Speech-1-043"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-05-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Civil aviation security2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020513.4.1-043"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-05-13-Speech-1-0442
lpv:speaker	lp:Jan Marinus Wiersma2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PETI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine and the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Belarus (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-07--2002-09-24)3,3
lpv:translated text	"My group also regrets the Council’s obstinacy in finalising legislation concerning the establishment of common rules for security in aviation. Everyone is agreed that it is of great importance that this matter should be brought to a prompt close. The events of 11 September represented a very pressing reason for this. The same strict rules must now apply across the Union. It is therefore beyond belief that the Council should be reluctant to accommodate the wishes of the co-legislator, the European Parliament, and that as a result, we should be forced to table so many amendments at second reading. My group supports the rapporteur, Mrs Foster, and we too believe that the central issue concerns a transparent and coordinated system that funds the necessary security measures. Distortion of competition must be avoided. There are at the moment still too many discrepancies between the Member States where security measures are concerned, particularly the funding thereof. The Commission should promptly develop proposals in this respect. In these proposals, it should aim for the highest possible level of security. Additional expenses which the new rules entail, if they put the operation of certain airports at risk, should be reimbursed, whereby, however, the principle applies that in the medium term, the costs must be borne by the users and the sector. The measures to be drafted should be based on the ECAC recommendations. In our view, following existing practice will promote streamlining. We also support the principle of random inspections. These have a preventive effect. And this is in line with the view that, with regard to security, as few compromises as possible should be made. Exceptions should be kept to a minimum. This is why we support the rapporteur’s proposal to delete item 4 in Annex 3.2, where it is made possible not to screen all staff. Needless to say, we do not consent to the creation of this exception. So far, the Council has appeared unsympathetic to our requests to strike better deals on security as well as security measures with third countries too. This is rather strange, for leaks in the new system can be sprung in precisely those areas. In Europe too, countries can be found where it is possible to escape security measures in flights to the EU. It happened to me twice that I stepped onto a plane in an Eastern European country without any security or bomb control. Finally, a point that we have mentioned many times and also have to repeat on this occasion, is that we fail to grasp why the Council is opposed to granting the competition authority the possibility to carry out evaluations. It is, in our view, important that an amendment is once again tabled on this subject."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph