Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-01-Speech-1-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011001.5.1-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, environmental noise is a very old problem that for a long time, has not in fact been taken seriously. But it is a problem which is affecting many European citizens on a daily basis. Furthermore, the economic damage it incurs is enormous, running into the tens of billions of euros annually. I therefore welcome the proposed directive with open arms and certainly also embrace the rapporteur’s suggestions to turn it into a framework directive.
There has been much debate about the directive in this House, and unfortunately I have recently doubted on occasion whether all those taking part in the debate had actually read the proposal properly. Indeed, and I will repeat it once again, this is not about laying down the same noise standards in Europe. It is true that Europe boasts great cultural diversity, which means that what is experienced as disturbing in one country is not necessarily considered to be troublesome in another Member State. I do not want to go into that diversity, for that is not what today’s debate is about.
So what is it about? It is about measuring noise. That should be done in a uniform way across the European Union. For that purpose, a formula will need to be established on the basis of which maps can then be drafted. The population will subsequently need to be informed of what would come under noise pollution. On the basis of that information, which is measured everywhere in Europe in the same way on the basis of the same formulas, action campaigns can then be developed at local level. I therefore repeat once again, and I would like to cite the European Commission in its explanatory statement, it is not the intention to establish limiting values which apply to the entire European Union.
What we will need to do, however, is to avoid situations we have at the moment, for example, in my own living environment. For surely it is unacceptable that in one part of Europe, my region of Maastricht, an airport is not allowed to expand, while less than thirty kilometres down the road, in Belgium, based on more flexible requirements, a new airport is being opened without the slightest problem. The population has everything to do with this. In my opinion, ‘shopping’ distorts the market and should be prevented by the European airline companies.
Measuring methods are harmonised on the basis of a formula which takes into account – and that is something that needs to be explained to my fellow MEPs once again – the differences between ‘day’ and ‘night’, the population density, but also the cultural diversity, which means that in Portugal or Spain, different ‘day’ and ‘night’ hours can be established. The people in the south worry about the disturbance of the pace of life, but that is not a constant.
I should like to express a personal opinion on one other point. All the other opinions I have expressed were on behalf of the group. A great deal has been said about whether military airbases should or should not fall within the scope of the directive. Although that aspect has meanwhile been removed from the directive, it has been revived by the rapporteur. What I need to get off my chest – and I cannot explain it in any other way – is that I believe that military airbases should also be measured. Especially in this day and age, everyone is of the opinion that military aviation should be given free rein. I, too, am in favour of this, but that does not mean that they should not be subject to measurement. That has nothing to do with offering slots.
Most proposals have been re-instated from the original Commission proposal. That should in itself not be problematic."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples