Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-13-Speech-2-336"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070313.25.2-336"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as this is my first report in this House, I would like first to take the opportunity to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their very close cooperation, especially Mr Becsey, Mr Degutis, Mrs Lichtenberger and Mr Kohlíček, but also the other groups, because I learned how well we can cooperate on such a matter, with what concentration and with what willingness to reach a consensus.
On the content itself, what is the state of European airspace at present? In theory, we have a single European sky, but we currently have 27 different safety standards, and that makes some things possible that I do not believe are good. For example, less reputable airlines are currently still able to have the pick of safety standards in Europe, so to speak, depending on the country in which they want to be certified. Then there are European aircraft that do not see their home countries for several years on end, because they operate on other routes and can therefore be inspected only inadequately or not at all, and it has also been relatively difficult to check aircraft flying into the European Union from outside.
I therefore expressly welcomed the Commission proposal, which the Commissioner has just presented – and I think the great majority of this House did too. The thing on which we were not always entirely agreed was the way to get the outcome we so much wanted. In principle, I can distinguish three areas here: we were agreed that it is absolutely necessary to check third-country aircraft efficiently, and we were also agreed that the EASA should be able to carry our ramp inspections unhindered.
The decision on how the EASA Management Board should be appointed in future was rather more difficult. In my opinion, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, as the competent committee, in its vote proposed a very positive Europeanisation of the whole procedure, with something of a shift from the Member States to the Council and the European Parliament. The second essential question was: what qualifications should be required of the Management Board’s members? Here, too, a satisfactory solution has been found. The question of whether the EASA should be able to impose penalties was rather more difficult. Opinions on this in the House differ, and we shall see how things turn out in the vote tomorrow.
There were two things that were particularly difficult and which we were unable to get accepted, but I would like to mention them anyway. Firstly – and I have never made any secret of my conviction in the matter – we were unable to agree on more extensive rules for the certification of cabin crew. There seems to be a religious war taking place here – Mr Jarzembowski is just waving at me as a proponent of that war – with an uncompromising For on one side and an uncompromising Against on the other. I can only hope that the solution we have now found will open a door for a solution in the future and that, in the interests of cabin crews and above all of passenger safety, we will not have to wait for that future solution for too long.
The second question where it was particularly difficult was the one where it is in fact always difficult, namely funding. The EASA budget amounted to 70 million in 2006, funded partly by certification and partly by the taxpayer.
The problem with certification is, firstly, that it is increasingly difficult to get money for some certification tasks and, secondly, there is a desire, which I share, that these certification costs should not be as heavy a burden on small and medium-sized enterprises as on large undertakings, whose larger production runs make it easier for them. An interesting solution would have been to introduce a kind of passenger fee, if you think that 5 cents a ticket could fund half the EASA budget. But there was no agreement on that.
I look forward to tomorrow’s vote with great interest and would like to close by once again expressing my thanks for the close cooperation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples