Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-19-Speech-1-104"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100419.18.1-104"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, the proposal for a directive on aviation security charges is the result of the debate on financing aviation security which has been on the table since 2001. It follows on from the rising security costs observed subsequent to the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and from the establishment of an EU regulatory framework for aviation security.
Thank you very much for this excellent report. We look forward very much to working with the rapporteur and the Parliament and to further progress on this issue.
By its legislative proposal, the Commission intends to set up a transparent and non-discriminatory framework for levying aviation security charges in Europe. Furthermore, the Commission considers that aviation security charges should be set in consultation with airport users and should be cost-related. I would like to congratulate Mr Leichtfried for his fantastic work on this report and also to thank the Members of the TRAN Committee who also contributed to this report.
I believe that the report goes precisely in the direction of the Commission’s intended goals, and I welcome the support it gives to the Commission’s proposal in those regards.
I would just like to emphasise two specific issues which are dealt with in the report. Firstly, the report introduces what is really a new element, namely the important and sometimes very controversial question of who pays for aviation security. Well, the Commission’s proposals did not address this issue, and the reason is that nearly all Member States insist that they are not in a position to take commitments in that regard, even though they acknowledge that public financing of aviation security should be permitted.
The choice, in our view, should therefore be left to the individual Member States, and thus be dealt with through subsidiarity.
With this in mind, and with respect to the position outlined in the report up for adoption, the Commission would like to note that Amendment 32, which would oblige Member States to finance more stringent measures, will give rise to intense discussions with the Council on this proposed directive. However, I am confident that the rapporteur knew all this, and expected this fight with the Council.
The second issue is more for clarification, and relates to the impact assessment to be undertaken in advance of any further aviation security measures being taken under the framework regulation. This is definitely a very justified measure, but I would like you to know that we already have some mechanisms in place and we should not overburden ourselves.
First, there is the Stakeholders’ Advisory Group on Aviation Security which consists of air transport industry representatives among others, and it is fully involved in the conception of any proposed measures on aviation security.
Secondly, the regulatory procedure with scrutiny ensures that Parliament can exercise its right of veto if it deems appropriate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples