Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-29-Speech-3-067"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000329.6.3-067"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I look forward with great interest to the Commissioner’s reply to this debate. The first question one wants to ask is: is
accurate this morning in forecasting that the Commissioner is about to answer our questions by saying that only part of the noise regulation will come into force, the part relating to the European Union, on 4 May. We believe that what the Commissioner is going to say is that the part relating to third countries, which should come into force from 2002, will not come into force and will in fact be suspended.
The Environment Committee is the committee responsible within the European Parliament for the original regulation on aircraft noise and we have watched with some dismay the reluctance of the United States to accept that the European Union is within its rights to insist on bringing the regulation into force by the due date.
The background to this is from our point of view continued prevarication on the part of the United States’ administration whose attitude has, in the past, given us insufficient guarantees that they are willing to negotiate seriously through ICAO to find a way out of our difficulties. The Environment Committee insists that we have every right, given the proximity of very many European airports to centres of population, to try to get lower noise levels from planes landing in Europe, no matter where they come from and who operates them.
Europeans should surely be able to legislate as they wish to protect the population of Europe, and give them the highest standards possible of noise protection. To put it at its crudest, how will we explain the situation to the people of Europe if, after 2002, they still hear noisy old planes from third countries, fitted with the hushkits we judge inadequate, clattering round our skies?
This is, of course, a difficult issue to discuss sensibly in a United States election year. We can understand that American politicians have little room for manoeuvre. I think, however, that the Commissioner may be about to announce to us that light is dawning and that we can see a way forward that will enable both sides to be satisfied and to allow sensible negotiations to continue for a global solution.
The first compromise put forward a little time ago seemed to many in the Parliament to be much too shaky. In effect the European Union would have suspended the whole regulation, and then the United States would have suspended its complaint to ICAO and negotiations would have gone forward. Or would they? The danger, it seemed to us, was that the European Union would have been left with absolutely nothing.
We look forward to what the Commissioner has to say, and I have to underline that it is very important that she should satisfy the Environment Committee and the Parliament, not least because if she is asking us to suspend the application of any part of the regulation, it will have to come through this Parliament by codecision."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"chairman of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy."1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples