Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020903.3.2-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like once again to thank Mr Blokland for the work he has done.
I would like to thank the various Members once again for their speeches.
The Commission cannot accept all the amendments proposed, amongst other things because, when it comes to regulating this type of issue, we have to ensure that there is a balance between the necessary harmonisation, which prevents everybody from going off in their own direction, and the room for manoeuvre of the various States of the Union and competent authorities, in other words, the principle of subsidiarity.
Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot accept the following amendments: Amendment No 3, which proposes using noise measured at airports as a basis, rather than the certified noise of the aircraft, because that would significantly reduce the transparency of the charging system and also because it could cause discrimination as a result of the considerable differences between the noise measurement systems used in the different airports.
Amendment No 4, which does not make it sufficiently clear that the concept of modulating charges must be applied, both in the case of a neutral framework, from the point of view of revenue, and when revenue is used to fund measures to alleviate environmental effects.
Amendment No 8, which would oblige the Commission to prepare a report on the possibility of replacing the system proposed in the long term with a system based on noise measurement. Since the Commission believes that this methodology would not guarantee sufficient transparency, as I said in relation to Amendment No 3, we believe that it does not make sense to carry out the said study.
While we are saying that these amendments would increase the differences and therefore reduce the harmonising effect sought by the Commission’s proposal, I must say that nevertheless, we must reject Amendment No 9, which establishes a minimum noise charge, because airports without noise problems should not in principle be obliged to impose noise charges.
Amendment No 10 cannot be accepted since it would not make it sufficiently clear that increasing revenue from noise charges is an option and not an obligation. The same can be said of Amendments Nos 11, 15, 16 and 17, because they are contrary to the main objective of the proposals, which is to achieve a minimum degree of harmonisation. In this regard, I would like to say to Mr Jarzembowski that, if we leave what has been done already, I am afraid to say that we would have a much lesser degree of harmonisation.
Amendment No 13 cannot be endorsed, because it would oblige all airports to apply a system of noise taxes and Amendments Nos 18, 19 and 20 are not only ruled out because the inclusion or reference to harmonised European objectives is outside the scope of this proposal, but also because they are completely incompatible with the method proposed for the calculation of charges on noise emissions.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are a series of amendments which are acceptable, but there are others which we cannot accept, either because they propose an excessive degree of harmonisation or because, on the contrary, they would excessively reduce the degree of harmonisation proposed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples