Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-13-Speech-2-338"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070313.25.2-338"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, as others have said, I think this is a good report and I congratulate my colleague, Mr Leichtfried, not just on the report but on the way that he has involved other colleagues in Parliament in the discussions and in the debate.
We are looking at an extension of the European Aviation Safety Agency. I think it is a good idea, but only if it is done properly. If done in the wrong manner, it would not be positive. We, as members of this committee and this Parliament, know that air travel – and many of us use air travel more than we would like – is actually one of the safest modes of travel available. I think that we need a sensible response and in a single market it is quite appropriate that we should have a European response to safety.
Having said that, there are issues in this report about which I have concerns and I would like to draw Members’ attention to some of these. Indeed, the rapporteur is aware of some of my concerns.
Amendment 17 highlights my concerns about fines and penalties. I do not believe you can compromise on safety, so I do not think that fines and penalties are an effective measure for correcting safety problems. If there were a safety concern about a particular airline, I would be much happier if that airline’s licence were suspended or its certification revoked. I do not think that we can have half measures. I do not think that a fine or a penalty would make an airline improve in the way that a withdrawal of its certificate would.
Well, let me carry on and I will not interrupt you. I could not hear a word you said, so it may have been important but I missed it completely!
I also have reservations about fees, because I believe this Agency needs to have a secure footing. The funding needs to be there, they need to know it is going to be continued and I do not think there can be arbitrary limits on the setting of funds.
Another reservation I have – and Mr Leichtfried spoke about this – is the management board. I think that citizens expect the board members to pay a full role in ensuring their safety. Member States should be able to nominate and vote on qualified people to ensure that their interests and obligations are met.
My final point concerns Amendment 1. There is a difference between safety and security. They are very separate and it is not clear to me – and I wait to be convinced – about what benefits would be brought by bringing security into this measure, which is to do with air safety. Air security is equally important, but it is a very separate issue."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Interjection from Mr Jarzembowski)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples