Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-19-Speech-1-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100419.18.1-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, at the moment, in the area of European aviation security and aviation security charges, we have a situation in which everyone does what they want. No one really does it properly. However, we will have to pay for this. This is something that we really should not take lying down, and this report aims to change things. What specifically will it change, and what does it aim to change?
I would just like to say in advance that on almost all points – and I would like to thank my fellow Member – there is a unanimous perception that the report could bring more transparency. Transparency means that on the one hand, airlines will, in future, be able to obtain information allowing them to understand what security charges will be applied to them by airports, what they are for, whether they are too much – which still sometimes happens at the moment – and, as the next step, that passengers too, of course, will be able to understand what airlines require from them. Here too, I have the suspicion that the transparency of the airlines is sometimes intentionally restricted, even when, as they say, they make a great effort to be transparent.
One point which is very important in this regard is the fact that, across Europe, there are various different systems for financing security facilities. There are states which have financed them purely through taxation. There are states in which only the end-user pays, and there are others which have a mixed system.
Our intention was to ensure that these systems could be retained. We do not want to prescribe to any Member State how security charges should be financed; we only want to ensure that whoever pays ultimately knows what he has paid.
There are, or were, different ideas about which airports should be included, and we have decided that it is a question of security. It is not about earnings and not about profits; it is about security. Therefore, we have decided that all airports that are commercially run must be included, and I think that that was the correct decision too.
Finally, we have reached a point where we have a great deal of unanimity here in plenary, namely on the point that we should make a distinction between charges for security facilities, security measures included in the EU rules, and charges for security measures which go beyond that – what are referred to as the ‘more stringent measures’.
We say that everything that falls within the EU context will stay as it is; each Member State can do what it considers right. If, however, security measures going above and beyond that are taken, then those Member States have to finance this themselves. On the one hand, this should ensure that it will be dealt with carefully, that security measures will not just be taken immediately without considering whether they are really necessary and that it will also be taken into consideration what this means for passengers and what it means for airlines and airports.
On the other hand, it should also be ensured that, in this regard, we also apply the principle that security is a public duty as well. Attacks on airlines are, as a rule, not directed at airlines, but at the states from which these airlines come, and therefore we also think that, in principle, security is still a public duty, and therefore must also be financed publicly.
I would briefly like to say something more on the amendments, which have reached an unbelievably high number – three in total. I think that they are all very justified and well-founded. I would say, particularly concerning the two amendments by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, that they are very much worth supporting, not because Mrs Lichtenberger is sitting next to me, but because they contain social requirements for employees at airports. I think that that is very important, particularly at times when airlines and airports are under pressure."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples