Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020903.3.2-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Directive is a constituent part of a strategy to combat the noise nuisance at airports and in the areas around them – an issue very close to the public's heart. The strategy's objective is that quieter aircraft must be brought into service and noise charges must become more effective in environmental terms. That is already happening at many airports in the Community, but not by a long way at all of them. The Commissioner is right to say that each Member State has quite different criteria for differentiating between charges and
the amount of perceived noise. There is a real need for harmonisation.
Thus far, the Directive makes sense. It will at one and the same time make for greater transparency and more equal treatment, and make the charges payable by the airlines more predictable, so that, as well as of course markedly improving protection against noise, it will have an incidental effect on competition. The proposal for a directive does, however, have one grave defect, and now I want to sound the same warning note as Mr Jarzembowski in saying that it makes for downward harmonisation, albeit involuntarily. For the proposal for a directive forces the progression to tail off to such a degree that it can no longer be called a perceptible incentive, and that cannot be the objective of our policy on noise and the environment.
Frankfurt, London, Paris, Munich, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Rome, Madrid, and Stuttgart have other systems of charging for noise, which result in markedly better protection against it, and these must be retained, yet it is precisely that which the Commission proposal would prevent if not amended to some degree. Why is this so? There is no effective economic incentive unless noise charges increase markedly and progressively – and, I emphasise, markedly and progressively – in line with the increase in noise volume. Quiet aircraft
must therefore benefit and loud aircraft must incur substantial charges. Whatever harmonisation is needed, our objective must still be to keep Europe's standards of noise prevention as high as possible. My group has therefore reintroduced three amendments, which make it clear that charging systems that are already in existence and are more effective in environmental terms, are to be retained.
I ask the whole House to support these amendments. It would indeed be absurd to penalise airports that provide far better protection against noise than that which has hitherto been proposed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples