Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-12-Speech-1-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030512.8.1-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Nicholson, on his report.
Members have highlighted the reasons why this regulation is required in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001 in the United States, so I will not go any further on that point. I should just like to say that we believe it is a necessary regulation because it creates legal certainty and because it establishes minimum insurance requirements for liability in respect of passengers, luggage, cargo, mail and third parties.
On the whole, we believe that the Commission did a reasonable job. However, we also believe our committee has improved the text by bringing it closer to reality and by clarifying certain aspects of it. I support the call from the rapporteur with regard to an economic impact assessment of this legislation before the second reading.
The main points I would like to raise on behalf of the PSE Group are as follows:
The Commission's categories regarding the minimum insurance requirements cover too wide a spectrum of aircraft and would have constituted a burden which is too high or even unbearable for smaller aircraft in general aviation. I believe we have found a good compromise in the committee by lowering and changing the categories and by using more or less the categories of resolution ECAC/25-1.
My group has tabled two amendments again for plenary. The first is to ensure that the person of the party liable in respect of an aircraft is identical to the person required to take out the insurance. This amendment is necessary in order to avoid duplication of insurance, gaps in the insurance cover, or insurance without liability.
The second amendment is about the consequences if the conditions of this regulation are not met, in particular as it applies to an air carrier or aircraft operators from third countries, who must be refused access to routes to or within the Community or the right to overfly the territory if they fail to comply. We must remember that Community air carriers and keepers of aircraft registered in the Community shall forfeit their operating license where the prescribed insurance cover is not maintained. Therefore we must make this distinction between third country and Community carriers or operators.
We believe that refusal or access to routes is the appropriate sanction for non-EU air carriers and aircraft operators, and that the only sanction we can impose is the denial of access to routes.
These two amendments are reasonable and I hope colleagues will support them"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples