Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-054"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-09-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Noise charges for civil subsonic aircraft2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020903.3.2-054"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-09-03-Speech-2-0552
lpv:speaker	lp:Georg Jarzembowski2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with Japan (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Madam Vice-President, in principle, we transport experts among the Christian Democrats also support the Commission proposal on noise charges, as we have to use higher charges for noisy aircraft to give the airlines a practical stimulus to use quieter aircraft, and thereby protect the public from a needlessly high level of perceived noise. Those of us who sit on the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are not very happy with the Committee on the Environment, Health and Consumer Policy, as the Environment Committee has simply rejected the proposals that the Transport Committee had adopted by a large majority. The Commission should reconsider how it might reintroduce our proposals, as the Transport Committee's proposals were aimed at giving airports a far more sophisticated framework within which to calculate noise charges. We want to make it clear in law that it is possible to spread the burden more widely and that aircraft are, as an alternative, to be liable to charges either according to certification or in accordance with the noise levels as actually measured. We take the view that what we proposed in the Transport Committee is more environmentally effective, and that it maintains a higher standard. In the EU, we have in fact always acted according to the principle that, where extensive and effective environmental protection systems are already in place and we lay down a minimum standard at European level, the countries and groups with more highly-developed systems do not have to reduce their standards. You, Commissioner, are in a position to set at nought my concern that we might be using European law to lower existing noise standards, and you can do it right now. A broad majority of us in this House has agreed on Amendment No 11, which is to be added to the Blokland Report, by which we seek to make it clear that existing, more effective, noise charge systems may be retained, and thus that European law does not mean a step backwards for the protection of the environment. To that extent, Commissioner, I look forward to your comments on Amendment No 11 with great expectation."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph