Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-13-Speech-1-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020513.4.1-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I should like first of all, on behalf of my group, to express my most sincere thanks to the rapporteur who has not only done a vast amount to familiarise herself with this complicated material – indeed, she is a veritable expert on it now – but has also tried as far as possible to make some excellent proposals. We are very disappointed with the Council, though. When, in December, we tried to find a common approach at first reading, it proved incapable of talking with us at all. In the last two weeks as well, when, following the committee discussions, the rapporteur again tried to reach agreement with the Council, the latter was again unable to oblige. I have to say that it is shocking that, in a situation following 11 September when passengers are in danger, the Council is unable to quickly reach an agreement with us.
We have a counter-example. Just a few weeks ago, the Council and Parliament together took no more than three months to find a practical solution to the issue of restrictions on airport operations due to noise. The fact, however, that, on as important a matter as that of passenger safety, the Council is unable to reach an agreement with us is disgraceful, and we need to say so in no uncertain terms. I also hope that, if we vote as one tomorrow, the Council will have second thoughts and will want to join with us in finding a solution through the conciliation procedure. I would also appeal to the Commission too to tell the Council that we have done everything to reach an agreement with it. The Council was unable to oblige, and I now expect the Commission to support the vast majority of our amendments at least. The Council must see Parliament and the Commission acting together.
Allow me to make two observations. Firstly, it is very important that the Member States acknowledge that they have to bear some of the costs of the increased security measures. It is simply not acceptable that, at public expense, the police in my country patrol and oversee every football match, from which the professional clubs do not earn such a bad living, while the Member States do not wish to make their contribution to the cost of increased security measures at airports, which are in the interests of everyone and not only of the airports. That is simply not on. We expect the Council to accommodate us on this crucial point.
The second, somewhat critical question – and one addressed by Mrs Foster – is that of whether employees really need to be vetted 100%. My group shares the rapporteur’s opinion, but I for my part take a different view of this issue. Allow me again to point out that, unlike passengers, employees are in principle vetted before they are taken on. If they were then to be checked up on five or six times a day, then that would be a bit too much of a good thing. We have to realise that, important as security is, there must also be practical arrangements at airports and for the passengers and airlines that use them. I therefore hope that we take a different decision tomorrow.
Those who committed these criminal acts on 11 September were not airport or airline employees."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples