Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-317"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001213.11.3-317"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, environmental noise is one of the oldest environmental problems we know. Despite this, noise was not considered a serious environmental problem for a long time. Now that environmental noise has gone through the roof, increased mobility being one of the specific causes, the number of people facing this problem has also increased greatly.
I therefore welcome the Commission proposal, although I consider it to be an initial and – in my opinion – cautious step. The Commission does not have the courage to set European standards but aims in the first instance only to harmonise the noise pollution indicators.
In his report, Mr De Roo proposes turning the directive into a framework directive. Our group has welcomed this suggestion with open arms. As far as legislation is concerned, I would, however, like to prioritise and, initially, to opt for regulation of noise around airports.
After all, wherever we are based, it appears that noise around airports is experienced as particularly disturbing. All the more reason, therefore, for a People’s Party such as ours, the PPE-DE, not to let aviation escape European legislation and to scrap the distinction made between military and civil aviation. We also need European legislation because, in my opinion, we can no longer allow aviation companies to ‘shop around’. Airports such as Orly, Schiphol and Barcelona already meet strict requirements. It is no longer acceptable for a market to be disturbed by unequal legislation within aviation.
Discrepancies may lead to a situation where an airport on one side of the border, for example Maastricht, is not allowed to expand, while 50 km down the road, a new airport is built in Bierset without any restrictions. We must also consider the use of the terms of day and night and even margins of the night, concepts which lead to much confusion in the Netherlands too.
In my opinion, what we need is uniformity for the sake of healthy competitive relations, but also for the people we represent, which is also the purport of this directive.
However, rail and car traffic noise are issues which can be solved more easily by means of technical directives. I would therefore argue in favour of moving away from the idea of noise pollution or standards around road traffic axes but instead promote quieter vehicles and quieter trains. Anything above and beyond that is subject to subsidiarity, in my opinion, and should be up to the Member States to decide.
I will advise my group to vote against Amendments Nos. 36 and 49 because they contain a number of technical problems, not because the goals are pitched too high, but because the technical details cloud the issue. I would like to finish off with a word of thanks to the rapporteur."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples