Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-01-Speech-1-080"

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	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011001.5.1-080"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-10-01-Speech-1-0812
lpv:speaker	lp:Françoise Grossetête2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2001-01-17--2001-11-29)3 vice-chair; EPP-ED (1999-09-30--2002-03-07)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Démocratie libérale (1999-07-20--2002-11-17)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, we all agree that noise pollution disturbs the everyday lives of the people of Europe. I am however, rather surprised. We are simply asking Europe to compensate for errors in land use planning that have been made in all of our Member States. Why, then, should we appeal to Europe, since each Member State can decide for itself what it should do on its own territory? We have already adopted measures on tyres and aircraft engines and we can do the same for road surfaces. This is indeed a huge task, but why should we lay down regulations which, in reality, concern not only Member States but must also take account of differences between these countries and, above all, encourage local authorities to adopt the necessary measures in line with their local situation rather than us deciding for them? This is the principle of subsidiarity and I am particularly keen to see it implemented in this area. Locally elected representatives are responsible for deciding on what needs to be done in each town, county or region. These are decisions for locally elected representatives. I am one of them and I know very well what is involved in drawing up a strategic noise map. We are told about airports, for example. There are international airports, and there are national airports and there are considerable differences between airports. The impact of noise is, therefore, different. Why, then, should we impose standards that will not apply to all of them? It should not be forgotten that airports are crucial to the areas in which they are located. Infrastructures for air transport are a crucial factor for industries, which often choose where to base themselves on the basis of communications links and airports. Is it worth emphasising that an exception absolutely must be made for military airports? I agree with Mr Florenz. The current situation clearly shows the importance of this provision. I shall conclude by reminding you that the title of this directive is ‘Assessment and Management of Noise’. Management is, therefore, preceded by an assessment. How can we attempt to set limits without a detailed and wide-ranging study, based on commonly established assessment criteria? We would need to have precise maps on noise and then ask every Member State to implement effective action plans. It is also crucial that we involve the public in these exercises, although this can only be done with the agreement of each country and each local authority."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph