Mr President, Commissioner, the only words that are fitting for the terrible disaster of Sharm el-Sheikh are sadness and compassion and I want again to express my solidarity with the victims’ families and share in their grief. Obviously, it is impossible today to determine the causes of this accident and to say who was responsible. I am also aware that air transport is not without risks. No airline is immune from accidents. Having said that, we who carry political responsibility are involved, we have a particular responsibility because this accident has highlighted a number of questions that cannot be avoided. I would like, in the time that is given me, to go over those that seem to me the most important. The first question concerns States. Why did two States, France and Switzerland, take different decisions about the condition of aircraft belonging to the same airline? Was it due to inadequate cooperation or inadequate controls? How are the SAFA programmes applied? Important as they are, they are no substitute for thorough technical controls. Information should be automatic and transparent, with mandatory inspection on the slightest suspicion. As things in fact stand, as you said, there are no sanctions for states that fail to carry out inspections. I share Mrs de Palacio’s concern that it should be possible for a particular or reinforced protection measure adopted by one Member State in order to ensure safety to be extended to the whole Community. The second question is concerned with the safety consequences of the liberalisation of air transport. As you said, Commissioner, it is a global problem. With the growth of charter flights and low-cost fliers, airlines are engaged in keen competition. Cost cutting is certainly involved, but on what terms is that possible? There is a great temptation to cut back on training, maintenance or staff, and safety is threatened. Does not the European Union’s vaunted obsession with favouring the lowest economic cost in aviation help to make that the only regulator? The third question has to do with checks on aircraft that are a safety risk. The proposed directive, which was again submitted in January 2002, has still not been adopted. We must demand strict safety guarantees for all aircraft using the Union’s airports, step up controls and further harmonise joint technical regulations, including those concerned with flight and rest times. The Council should stop prevaricating and really get down to much stricter and more transparent safety rules. Finally, if we are to be effective legislators, we must call on the industry’s professionals. Pilots, technicians and other professionals have irreplaceable experience in this field. It is very useful to listen to them. That is the reason for the initiative my group has taken for a hearing to be held here on Wednesday afternoon. I also want in a few words to give my opinion on the EU-US agreement on the transmission of data relative to transatlantic flights. For the fight against terrorism, data would be transmitted in 34 fields, including the racial origins, political opinions, religious convictions and state of health of passengers, whereas the national authorities competent for the protection of privacy had reduced that list to 19. Moreover, the US authorities want to pass that data to US surveillance networks. It seems to me that this agreement isolates the European data protection directive and, in the light of European legislation, I do not think we can agree to the transfer of this data.

Political group: GUE-NGL