Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-01-Speech-1-074"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-10-01"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Environmental noise2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011001.5.1-074"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-10-01-Speech-1-0752
lpv:speaker	lp:Chris Davies2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, it may well be that 100 years ago our cities resounded to the noise of iron wheels and iron hooves bouncing off cobbled stones. I suspect that made a hell of a din. Nonetheless the impression is that our society has become noisier with more machinery, hi-fis and stereos, planes, trains and, above all, motorways. I am all in favour of cutting noise and making life more pleasant, peaceful and calm. I support the Commission's proposals for common measurements so that we all know what we are looking at and what we are hearing across the European Union. I support the idea of noise mapping and I support legislation under single market rules to introduce limits on noise from new equipment being introduced and sold throughout the European Union. But I am opposed to the Union seeking noise limits on installations in any individual Member State. I do so, as I have argued strongly in committee, on the grounds of subsidiarity, in the belief that decisions should be taken at the lowest practical level. In almost every case in the Committee on the Environment, we deal with issues which should rightly be dealt with at European Union level, because they concern matters which affect more than one Member State – transboundary issues. But today I arrived in Parliament, I opened my window in the office in the Tower and I could not hear Strasbourg airport, I could not even hear the railway. All I could hear was someone shouting down in the courtyard. I do not regard noise from airports as a transboundary issue and I am pleased that the committee rejected a number of the amendments which were tabled. I will be urging my group to reject Amendment No 34 here because it still implies that noise limits should be introduced. Mr de Roo commented on Amendment No 36 that the eight-hour sleep limit is essential for everyone. That may be the case. It may also be the case that a cup of cocoa and a bedtime story are essential for everyone but this is not something which should be done at EU level. We should not be setting standards for these things. What is fascinating about this debate, as it was in committee and here now, is that for the best possible reasons – the improvement of health and enhancing the environment – measures have been suggested to us which represent a sort of creeping centralisation which, at the end of the day, makes the European Union seem bossy and interfering to far too many of our constituents. We should take this opportunity, and indeed every opportunity, to put into practice our belief that wherever possible we should be applying strictly the principles of subsidiarity and making sure that when we take measures on behalf of the environment at European Union level it is because they will genuinely make a difference to individuals and cannot be done by individual Member States."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Liberal Democrat Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Davies (ELDR )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph