Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-14-Speech-3-335"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060614.20.3-335"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we can try this evening to make progress with this regulation and its subject-matter, which will enable us to conclude a piece of legislation initiated in the wake of the 11 September terrorist attacks. It is quite right that all the consequences of that experience should be examined and that we should be even better prepared to tackle the situation now developing.
I consider this an acceptable solution, and I hope that tomorrow Parliament will effectively help to make the report and the regulation progress.
I should just like to highlight two aspects of the work we have done, because the Commission’s proposal is an excellent one that just needed to be made more explicit on a few points and developed further on a single point.
The proposal needed to be made more explicit regarding the idea that we can only be certain of achieving a good outcome for aviation security if we have a single system that provides a level of security guaranteed by every airport and every airline.
The system as a whole has been redefined precisely to that effect. The idea of implementing a single security system is essential if we are to provide the strongest possible protection for all European and non-European citizens who fly in our skies and use our airports.
I believe there is one point that has been neglected ever since 2002, which is the fact that, if at least a basic level of common security is to be imposed throughout Europe, effective funding mechanisms also need to be provided. Support for such funding may come from two sources: one resulting from the general public concern that we must defend ourselves against possible terrorist attacks, and the other resulting from individual fear, in that each passenger as such produces a demand for additional security.
Currently, the situation in Europe as regards the way these measures are funded is extremely varied and not necessarily very fair or correct. That is the reason why we have insisted – and continue to insist – on the need to lay down rules for funding these basic security measures, keeping in mind the possibility of redistributing the funding equally between the two sources. That is the subject of the amendment that we have put forward, which was supported by a large majority in committee and I hope will likewise be accepted in this House tomorrow. With our amendment, therefore, we invite the Commission to make some technical suggestions on the subject. The European Parliament will, for its part, do everything possible for the amendment to be accepted.
I am aware of the fact that this is a sensitive subject for the Council, but I believe that, if security is indeed regarded as a supreme good and a primary objective, it is essential to create the right conditions to guarantee it.
Precisely because the security funding situation in Europe is highly varied at the moment, it is important to ensure that the issue is made explicit, that the citizens understand what they are contributing towards, and that the funds intended for security be used transparently and effectively.
In drawing up the common rule, we have also had to address matters of detail that are very much in the public eye, such as the problem of on-board security. In that regard, Parliament suggests imposing a ban on having weapons on board, except in special, duly authorised cases."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples