Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-03-10-Speech-1-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080310.19.1-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and other subsequent threats have made us realise how vulnerable the aviation sector is and how deadly the effects of an attack using an aircraft or perpetrated inside one can be. And what an enormous impact those effects can have on the economy and thus on each and every one of us. Consequently it is important that we do everything necessary to ensure maximum security and it goes without saying that we must have maximum harmonisation on the matter at European level.
But at the same time we must also seek a balance between security on the one hand and comfort, privacy and freedom of movement on the other hand, as the rapporteur says. That was always our view as the European Parliament's delegation during the negotiations, and I think we worked well together across party lines with Mr Costa, Mr Jarzembowski, in the conciliation procedure too. We all pulled together and we came out of it with a good compromise deal, as the Commissioner rightly points out.
That is not to say that we are one hundred percent happy. Everything will depend on how the agreements reached are implemented on the ground. And in two essential areas: firstly, implementation of the measures. We have secured a significant continuing involvement for Parliament via the new comitology procedure with scrutiny, and we have
obtained a kind of veto, for cases where we think the proposed measures are disproportionate. So there is room for interpretation, for debate, and I think the liquids ban made it clear that this is necessary. We cannot allow a committee of experts to have
and not be accountable; and so to me this new form of democratic scrutiny is altogether a plus point.
We can perfectly well take on that job if the Commission keeps us continuously informed and briefed, and I think this will be something very important. We must also devise the right procedure in-house which will enable Parliament to do this adequately.
Secondly, we did not quite get what we wanted as regards the financing of security measures, we know that. We wanted to remain consistent in our thinking. Our expectation is that the security measures agreed by Europe will be adequate for everyone. If Member States need or want to do more, then they should bear the cost of that. We did not manage to get that accepted, but I am sure, Commissioner, that the undertaking you have given will lead to a new debate and genuine results in future.
In any event, as of today we have a framework that should allow us to take security measures quickly but will at the same time provide democratic accountability. It remains to be seen whether the system works to everyone's satisfaction. My Group too will support this."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples