Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-04-Speech-2-277"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010904.11.2-277"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Ladies and gentlemen, let me firstly thank our rapporteur and all the Members for the speed with which the European Parliament has worked on the proposal concerning the implementation of a European Aviation Safety Agency. I think that it is not totally out of place to say this, and that it practically amounts to the launch of an appeal to the Council and the Commission, to make sure that the proposal comes to fruition as quickly as possible, for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has, naturally, first ascertained the industrial interest in such an agency.
As you already know, we have an urgent need for the equivalent of the American Federal Aviation Administration if we want the Airbus standard to be commercially viable at international level, in particular the new A 380 programme. The Committee on Industry has been very sensitive to these issues. It has not dramatically increased the number of amendments and has made sure that we can proceed as fast as possible towards the effective creation of this tool that the European aeronautical industry has been waiting for with bated breath in the great international competition which places it, fairly regularly and not without controversy, face to face with its great American rival. This is why we are satisfied with the proposal, in the hope that the Council will prove to be generous enough in the assessment of the amendments that are presented to it.
My second important point concerns the problem of political control. We think that the concept of safety is formulated by specialists and technicians, but politics cannot be pushed to the sidelines. With each of the large-scale events and accidents that have recently taken place, for example with Concorde or the Mont-Blanc tunnel, we have requested answers from the public authorities. It is therefore necessary that this new agency be a technical tool for standardisation and certification primarily fed from the work of experts and manufacturers, but it should also be politically controlled. This is the reason for which we have put forward amendments requesting that the executive director of such an agency, or even the agency itself, can make itself available to Parliament or, at the very least, be heard by Parliament. There are those who even hope that it should have parliamentary representatives on the administrative board, for the administrative board is a body that is not technical but political in nature.
Finally, we are hoping that, in the committees of experts, the greatest cooperation will be open to all parties concerned, notably in relation to the creation of the “single sky” or problems relating to air control. We think that this should be carried out in consultation with both sides of industry and workers’ representatives, otherwise we will be creating insurmountable obstacles to the objectives we are pursuing. So, ladies and gentlemen, these are the main conclusions of the Committee on Industry."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples