Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-14-Speech-5-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000414.4.5-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Lannoye stated a moment ago that noise is a problem with all forms of transport, but the problem with aircraft is very specific because it is so concentrated. In its communication on airports and the environment, the Commission mentioned a few things about noise, one being – and you also echoed this yourself – that the principle of subsidiarity applies to noise. In other words, it must be possible to implement at local level without the European Union having to regulate everything. I would, however, like the Commission’s guarantee that distortion of competition is ruled out. An interesting concept in the communication is the drafting of classification lists, not only for aircraft, but also for airports. This would mean that noise-sensitive airports would be distinguished from others and that certain activities could not take place at such airports but could possibly take place at less noise-sensitive airports. Mrs Van Brempt already pointed this out: we are faced with a dilemma.
It is clear that certain businesses and a certain economic sector totally rely on night flights. If we asked them what would happen if there were no night flights, they are bound to say that they would have to close down their businesses, their activities would become pointless and they would no longer be able to offer their services. Our question is, therefore: how can we marry the two together? The Commission should then legislate against distortion of competition between different airports in different Member States. Mrs Van Brempt clearly stated what the dilemma was for the Belgian Government. It is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. As it happens, the Belgian Government has taken a number of measures, but would it not be useful, for example, if the Commission were to compile some sort of list of good and bad airline companies in terms of noise, if it were to draw a distinction between those who do invest in combating noise, those who can present a good record in combating noise and those who cannot, those who do not try their best, and then combine this with measures. Because one thing is clear: noise must be penalised. Accordingly, it should be more expensive to fly certain aircraft and it should be impossible to fly certain aircraft at night for example. A total ban would be ideal, of course, but can we afford this and where could this be done? We would like to have these questions answered by the Commission. A European framework is lacking at the moment – and you say yourself that a framework should be in place, but when? When will this happen? We have a communication at the moment and shortly we will have the report by Mrs Lucas on aviation and the environment, but when are we getting legislation, when can we expect a framework which is sufficiently clear for each Member State, so that distortion of competition is ruled out? Would it not be useful, for example, to look at ‘best practices’ at this stage – to use a buzz word – so that we know what certain airports get up to? This would be some achievement. For example, at Schiphol, there is a kind of complaints desk for noise. Other airports do not have this but could possibly do with one. So why not exchange ideas between the different EU airports, where all of us are faced with the same problem? I would ask the Commission to speed up its process and not to wait for the legislative measure alone, but to set up other initiatives in order to bring people closer together."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples