Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-19-Speech-1-112"

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	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100419.18.1-112"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-04-19-Speech-1-1132
lpv:speaker	lp:Gesine Meissner2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; ALDE (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2012-12-16)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2012-12-16)3 member; TRAN (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 unknown; Freie Demokratische Partei (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; EMPL (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I would first like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Leichtfried, also on behalf of Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert. She cannot be here today. She arranged everything together with you, and was also completely satisfied. We can also say that another thing that shows how good the report is is that there has been pretty unanimous voting in the Committee. This is also – just like the question for oral answer which was just raised – a question of protecting consumers, and it is also a question of aviation security. We want security to be in place; however, we also want consumers to know how much they are paying for what. It has already been pointed out that the systems in different Member States are very different, and we do not want to change that in general either. We do not want to impose anything. We do, however, want there to be transparency on how the costs are put together and on the proportion that is to be paid by the consumer. This is not always provided at the moment. That is, we want to know what proportion of the ticket price – at the moment it is just a proportion of the ticket price that is paid for security – is really relevant to security. Then we also want a guarantee that what is paid for security is also actually used for security, and that no one profits from it. I think that the approach that we have developed on this is also a completely logical one. There is a critical sticking point between what Parliament would like and what the Member States think is good, and this is the question of who will pay for additional security measures taken which go beyond what we want in Europe for passengers. Here, we have said that actually, the Member States should do this. It is a question of national security in which the national states, too, must take a strong interest. Of course, the states do not want to pay for it. As has already been noted, with regard to the question of whether we want body scanners or not, we will undoubtedly also have to consider whether we want to have them throughout Europe or not, and who will eventually pay for them. Of course, we will also have to ask whether they really provide more security. So, aviation security charges of this kind must be administered transparently."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The President cut off the speaker)"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