Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-14-Speech-3-337"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060614.20.3-337"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, since the start of this Parliament I have worked on several reports dealing with security issues in the transport sector. I notice that on each occasion we seem to have exactly the same debates, whether the report deals with seaports or, as in this case, airports and aviation. Different industries face different threats necessitating different security measures. However, the report in front of us today is one that will probably have the greatest impact on the safety of Europe’s citizens. In general I welcome this proposal.
Clear rules for security across Europe’s airports are absolutely necessary. However – and here I speak personally – I have some concerns about some of the measures. Firstly, within the proposals before us, the Commission attempts to accrue more power for itself. What I refer to is the issue of special security measures. Those generally short-term increases in security, based on national intelligence, should not have to be approved by the Commission before being implemented. The Commission does not have the facility of intelligence-sharing, nor should it have, in my opinion. Therefore it does not have the ability to carry out that task effectively.
In some cases that particular position could jeopardise security itself. It is for Member States to decide on what extra measures they deem necessary. The Commission’s role should be to coordinate, not to dictate.
The issue of in-flight security does not belong in this regulation. Again, those are measures for individual governments and their own air carriers. My greatest concern is the proposal contained in some of the amendments adopted in committee to extend the competences of the European Aviation Safety Agency to take on security.
When the EASA was originally set up, it was generally agreed that it would deal with safety issues and have no influence on security. I remember well the problems caused in some languages by that definition. Since then the EASA has not proved itself competent, even in this area of work. I do not see why, given that failing, extra powers should be given to it.
Despite these reservations I see the benefits of common security standards across the Union. With the heightened terrorist threat to aviation today, improvements in security must and should be encouraged. Thus, with the support of a number of colleagues, I have tabled some amendments that not only address my concerns but all of those across the industry.
I hope we can achieve a workable solution to these issues. Common standards, not draconian regulation, are required for the continued safety for all Europe’s citizens."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples