Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-01-Speech-1-086"

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.20011001.5.1-086"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-10-01-Speech-1-0872
lpv:speaker	lp:Martin Callanan2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, I should like to make a couple of general points and a couple of specific points about this report. Firstly, generally, I support the common position – it is a useful compromise – but I would not support going any further than that. This is useful as a framework directive but I would not like to see lots of further directives springing from it. We need to be very careful in applying the principles of subsidiarity, a view which is being widely expressed across the Chamber. I am not sure that we would have any credibility whatsoever as a Parliament or as a European Union if we started to dictate to our citizens what hours they can or cannot sleep. This is a matter that should be determined for them at a local level. If an airport, for instance, is located in the centre of a city, then the limit values that should be acceptable there are completely different to those at an airport located out on a peninsula in a quiet rural area. Why should not a particular community seek to set up an airport, for instance as a cargo hub, that can experience noise pollution in excess of what a large city should produce? This is a matter for local authorities and for national governments and should not be a matter for this Parliament and for Europe. I should like to ask those people who wanted to include military aircraft and military airfields within the scope of this directive, whether they are really saying, as Europe is, at the moment, in a state of war, that our airforces cannot operate at night or with planes that are too noisy, that they cannot defend our freedoms against terrorist attacks if their aircraft are too noisy. I suggest that if that proposal is being made seriously, it would be laughed out of court across Europe. I am in favour of legislation laying down noise limits for specific projects, but we really are going far too far in many aspects of the amendments proposed in this directive."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2001-01-17--2002-01-14)3 substitute; ECON (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2000-04-03--2002-03-07)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Callanan (PPE-DE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph