Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-118"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020312.6.2-118"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, is what we have ideal? I do not think so. However, in the current circumstances, this is the best we can commit to paper, in my view. It is always easy to draft a series of standards just for the European Union, making them so strict in the process that while we may be happy with them, they may make it impossible for the average company to operate. We had the choice. We held a debate on whether to opt for an international, global or European solution. Given the present circumstances, we made a sensible choice. Moreover, it is on the strength of what we said that this strict standard was copied internationally. If all Member States have accepted this standard within the ICAO, it seems necessary to me that we, as a Community institution, ensure that this standard becomes law in the Union. I, for one, support this principle, and I think that the rapporteurs, both those of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and those of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy have done sterling work. As I belong to both these committees, I do not feel the ambivalence which some fellow MEPs do feel. I feel happy on both sides. This is also because the directive offers the necessary flexibility, since a system has been provided for which allows for an individual approach tailored to each airport, so that measures can be selected within a European framework. This, at least, guarantees a certain level of equality in the treatment of people who suffer from noise pollution. In the final analysis, this is the whole object of the exercise: to ensure that people are affected as little as possible and to reconcile – at least up to a certain degree – two aspects which are, in fact, irreconcilable.
Although the review after five years will involve a tightening up of legislation, there is, in my opinion, no need to establish a limit at this stage. This would be very unwise, in my view, and it could, in fact, undermine the entire proposal, which would be a very bad development, for we need to move forward quickly. Parliament must, therefore, approve this proposal, so that there is a legislative document by 1 April, upon which we can withdraw the hushkits directive.
For this we must take another look at Article 5(1), and we are in agreement on this. This is what we are planning to do, and I should like to ask the Commissioner whether she could not ensure that a uniform, Community method of measurement be established for this kind of noise, for that is still not available. In my view, you should draft a bill on how noise is measured, so that we can establish objectively how measurements are to be carried out, applicable to every airport uniformly. This initiative would also benefit the joint discussion on this issue."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples