Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-328"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001213.11.3-328"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I would like to thank the rapporteur; Mr de Roo, for his work. Environmental noise reduces the health and quality of life of at least 25% of the EU population. It causes illnesses such as stress and increased blood pressure as well as reductions in children's learning capacity. Aviation noise probably has the highest profile today in Europe, while locally noise from road traffic and sources such as trains and construction work is usually the biggest problem.
What should we do in order to deal with this growing problem? It was tempting to use this directive and other directives to set new EU noise limit values as soon as possible. That may seem the logical way to control the level of noise but it would be premature to set new limit values in this way for two main reasons. Firstly, because we already have market access legislation which set limit values for many road vehicle types and for equipment used outdoors. It would be simpler and quicker to tighten the noise standards in the existing legislation than to introduce new daughter directives. We will consider what these standards needs to be once we have the evidence from strategic noise maps.
Secondly, this proposal uses a new approach to assess the overall noise situation in Europe in terms of numbers of people who are disturbed by noise. It is impossible at the moment, because we use such a large variety of indicators and assessment methods, to characterise noise in different Member States. A particular problem is the noise around airports. Because of commercial competitiveness between airports and between aviation manufacturers it has not been possible to obtain correct and verified noise levels. Getting comparable information about the noise around airports will be a big step forward. The Commission would therefore not be able to support the amendments introducing airport limit values at this stage.
Once Member States have provided the comparable information then the Commission will consider the question of Community limit values and other measures to reduce the numbers of people affected by noise and report back to the Council and Parliament. As a general means of improving the situation, we propose that authorities in Member States should produce action plans in close consultation with the public. They should outline any measures that Member States take or plan to take to reduce the noise problem.
We are not prescribing what measures should be taken. This is for the Member States to decide. However, the action plans must be published, even if all they say is that no improvements are planned, so that people living locally will know the situation and will be able to discuss the issue with their elected representatives.
I am grateful to Members for their amendments strengthening the text and public participation, which we wholeheartedly accept. Our first priority is to produce strategic noise maps using standardised indicators and assess all types of noise to give us an accurate picture of the number of people who are suffering and where. Our first report on the directive is due to be submitted to Parliament in 2007. This will include a careful consideration of limit values. A five-yearly review process will then ensure that Members have a continued input. We value your input and welcome the majority of amendments you have contributed today. I hope we can now agree a positive way forward with a view to achieving a common position with the Council next week.
As far as the amendments are concerned, the Commission has considered 49 amendments and is able to accept 25 of them fully or in part. The Commission can accept Amendments Nos 1 to 3, 14, 18, 27, 30, 34, 35 and 43. The following amendments are acceptable in principle or in part: Amendments Nos 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 32, 39, 42, 44 and 45. The Commission cannot accept the other amendments.
To conclude I would like to thank European Parliament for the detailed consideration it has given to this proposal and for the many helpful amendments which have been contributed."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples