Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-07-05-Speech-2-786-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110705.42.2-786-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, aviation security has long been a subject of debate in Parliament. Strangely, the discussion in the Council foundered recently on the question of who is to pay for this security. Everyone is in favour of it, but no one actually wants to pay for it, as we have seen to some extent over recent weeks and months.
As regards the rules on liquids: we all knew what they were. We also knew what the deadline was and, thirdly, we were also clear as to what was and what was not technically feasible. Nonetheless, it was decided at the last moment that this scanning would not be introduced, due to so-called security aspects, even though we are and remain convinced that the arguments were purely financial. That is why I should like to repeat, on behalf of our group: how the Commission resolved this at the last minute should be and should remain an exception. It cannot provide a precedent for unilateral resolutions in the future. Secondly, we must also address issues correctly, when we address them in the run-up. That is why three principles are important to me for the future.
The first is: there should be no more last-minute decisions. The second is: a review should take place as early as 2012, because we want to know what is possible. The third is: what will happen with this opt-out clause on security grounds, after all, this clause will give every country the facility to opt out if security is the issue.
As far as body scanning is concerned, I would say to Mr Leichtfried that we must not overcomplicate the issue. With this excellent report by Mr de Grandes Pascual, Parliament has sent the Commission a clear message. We want to protect health and respect privacy. We do not want to make it binding. If a person does not want to use it, they should not have to use it. However, if something goes wrong tomorrow, then the House will again say, why did we not have better controls? We therefore need to strike a balance between good technologies and better controls. That applies to the future and not just at European level; it applies internationally as well. What is the point of introducing good control technology if it is not accepted on other continents?"@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples