Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020903.3.2-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I am speaking as a guest speaker on behalf of the actual draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, Mr Josu Ortuondo, who is, as you know, in Spain for political reasons.
The step from the European airspace to noise is naturally a simple one. If we simplify this procedure, then we should put a whole ream of conditions and measures in place. I would thank the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Blokland, for the work they have done, but the problems are clear and evident. Also, years of work have already gone into this topic. I myself attended the debates on hush-kits in the previous session. In principle, noisy aircraft should mainly be forced to become less noisy, in other words Chapters 3 onwards should apply. This is, in fact, the object of the whole exercise, and the enforcement of this via these measures is of major importance.
Needless to say, comments have been made on the Commission’s report. This should first and foremost address noise charges, the expenses involved and the relationship between the two. It is about harmonisation, and these noise charges must naturally be the result of noise classification. It is the noise charges, though, that matter most.
The problem with the Commission proposal is – and this is why amendments have been tabled in a number of committees – that it remains non-mandatory up to a certain point, because there is only a tenuous link between noise pollution on the one hand and levies on the other. It is pretty well left up to the Member States how they want to deal with these levies and, as Mr Blokland has already pointed out to a certain extent in his report, this can have a distorting effect on competition in practice, but mainly fails to motivate the aviation industry in the sense that I referred to previously. Also, it is very important, in my view, to stipulate – and this has been incorporated in a number of amendments – that better practices, insofar as these exist, which fall outside the scope of the directives and are simply better, should be maintained, and I therefore recommend supporting a number of amendments, mainly from the Group of the Party of European Socialists.
There is too little differentiation between the levies, and the link between the noise charges and the expenses is, in my view, an ambiguous one. Allow me to make a brief comment on this. As Mr Blokland already indicated, night rest, psychological effects and some of the environmental effects are difficult to verify, and there is room for improvement in this respect. Once again, I do recommend the amendments on this point tabled by the Group of the Greens, namely Amendments Nos 18, 19 and 20. I would state very clearly that we will certainly be retaining their amendments. I am not saying this on behalf of the Regional Policy Committee, but I would, however, recommend them warmly."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples