Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our citizens are increasingly affected by noise. Ten years ago, the European Commission estimated that the lives of a quarter of our citizens were disrupted by it. These days, the European Environmental Agency notes that thirty percent of Europeans suffer from noise pollution. That is an increase of twenty percent over a ten-year period. In my own country, the Netherlands, the number of people burdened by noise is as high as forty-three percent. More than ten million citizens in Europe have sleeping disorders. All citizens in Europe are entitled to the same protection against unhealthy noise levels. Unfortunately, our Environment Ministers do not share our opinion. Unfortunately, the Council has not backed the proposal of the huge majority of the European Parliament at first reading to establish four daughter directives. These daughter directives pertain to motorways, air traffic, railways and factories. That is why the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy proposes four daughter directives yet again. What the European Parliament wants is an all-round approach. The intention is to reduce aircraft noise at European level and to prescribe the same noise standards around busy airports in order to protect our citizens. To bring down the noise of lorries and cars at European level and prescribe the same noise standards along busy roads. To curb the noise of trains at European level and prescribe the same noise standard along busy railway lines. To decrease noise in factories and ensure that only a small proportion of this noise penetrates into the outside world. The Council has adopted the same opinion as the Dutch Environment Minister, Mr Jan Pronk, namely that noise is only a localised problem. Our Environment Ministers expose our citizens to increasing levels of noise. With regard to noise generated by road traffic, aircraft and trains, the Environment Ministers propose only a weak declaration but no binding legislation. There are now only a few European noise standards in place which relate to, for example, household appliances, lawnmowers and high-speed links. We desperately need European noise standards pertaining to aircraft. Far greater steps are possible technically speaking, and Europe must render these compulsory. European standards for lorries and cars are either non-existent or far too weak. The tyre directive is a case in point. Low-noise tyres may be available on the European market, but they are not yet a compulsory requirement. By means of low-noise asphalt, an enormous noise reduction of ten to thirteen decibels can be achieved. These technical advances must be incorporated in European policy. In addition to European standards for high-speed trains, we also need standards for ordinary passenger trains and for goods trains. The Council did agree to harmonising the measurement and calculation of noise. There are currently fifty-one different methods used in Europe. These are reduced to two by means of the same directive: Lden and Lnight. Unfortunately, the Council dropped a few stitches in the process. The Environmental Committee has offered to pick those up. Similarly, most members of the Environment Committee have dropped a few minor stitches. That is why the Group of the , in tandem with the Group, is tabling four extra amendments. Somewhat less high noise levels should also be measured. The European Commission shares that opinion, and I invite the Commissioner to confirm this in public. The common position states that the goal of the action campaigns is to mitigate noise. In plain English, this means noise screens and double-glazing. But that is not enough. The action campaigns must also aim to reduce noise. The majority of the Environmental Committee have adopted the Council’s position that a Member State must be able to establish its own noise indicator Lden. That means that measurements no longer need to be harmonised but that the extra protection of the night can be reduced by a factor of ten, namely from eight to six hours. That is pandering to the lobby and has nothing to do with the cultural discrepancies that exist between our peoples. Precisely that eight-hour period of sleep is essential to everyone. That is why we have tabled another common amendment in this instance. I call on all my fellow MEPs to give this matter some more thought, and not to allow themselves to be used by the lobbies on Wednesday but to give priority to the health protection of our citizens. IN THE CHAIR: MR WIEBENGAVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE