Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-19-Speech-1-111"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-04-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Aviation security charges (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100419.18.1-111"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-04-19-Speech-1-1122
lpv:speaker	lp:Saïd El Khadraoui2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries (2009-09-17--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the United States (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; S&D (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; TRAN (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 unknown; Socialistische Partij.Anders (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ECON (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, to begin with, I would like to thank the rapporteur for an excellent piece of work, some would even say a fantastic piece of work. Thank you, therefore, and thanks to those who have contributed to it. Might I just remind you that the issue of funding is not a new one. This dossier has actually been in the making since the moment we adopted a European regulation on the application of security measures at European level in the wake of the attacks of 11 September 2001. Right from the outset, the European Parliament has always stressed that the funding issue is a serious one and that we have to find a European solution to it. However, the Council has always obstructed this. As a follow-up to this debate, we should again call on the Council to honour the agreements it has made with us in the past, particularly the one that would allow us to draft a separate proposal on this issue, and to commit itself to working with us towards a solution. Obviously, we need to bear in mind a few considerations. The first and the most essential one is transparency. At the moment, we are not looking into exactly who in each of the Member States should foot the bill. However, one thing we certainly want is to organise a consultation on this issue, to reach agreements and then to stick to those agreements. In other words, what we want to see is the revenue generated by security charges actually being ploughed back into financing security measures and not, for example, into some sort of parking. That is essential and it should be clear that we must not budge on this issue. A second important consideration is that we need to make a distinction between security measures which we all have agreed jointly at a European level, and other additional measures being taken individually by Member States. As far as the first consideration is concerned, the transparency rules are clear and they have to be applied. As far as the second one is concerned, we have to make it clear that the financial responsibility lies with Member States and that they are the ones that have to foot the bill for additional security measures. Coordinating security measures at a European level would also be a bonus and if Member States decide on their own to introduce body scans or whatever, well, they will also have to bear the financial consequences of that."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"do"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph