Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-17-Speech-3-275"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010117.8.3-275"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, as mentioned in 1989, the Council and the Commission agreed that they had to address the harmonisation of the regulatory framework applicable to civil aviation in order to maintain a high level of safety and to ensure fair competition in the internal market. Hence, the Community adopted Council Regulation 3922/91.
This regulation listed a number of technical requirements – JARs – produced by the Joint Aviation Authority. It was not the purpose of this regulation to re-open a debate on the substance of JAR: the purpose was to ensure harmonisation. In addition, it should be recognised that JAR-OPS has been implemented on a national basis and is applicable to European countries outside the EU. Therefore changes must be kept to a minimum as there cannot be two different sets of operational regulations in force across Europe.
The Commission's original proposal highlighted four areas which were found to be incompatible in EU law: exemptions, leasing, registration and cabin crew training. Unfortunately, the debate so far has centred on cabin baggage and flight time limitations for flight crew.
On the first point – cabin baggage – the amendments are anti-competitive and cannot apply to third-country carriers. Sufficient regulation is already in place, which does not allow on board hand baggage which cannot be safely stowed – I can vouch for that as a cabin crew member for 26 years.
On my second point – flight time limitations, which are already highly regulated and agreed through national governments – civil aviation is now included in working time regulation.
Irrespective of the decision taken on 1 May, this issue would have to be referred back to national governments for further discussion. It is not for Parliament to legislate on flight time limitations.
Finally, I believe that in future safety and highly technical reports such as this should be subject to a simplified procedure in order to process necessary changes more speedily."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples