Mr President, allow me to start by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Lucas. My group has not proposed any further amendments for this plenary discussion. This means that we agree with the thrust of the report, and I would like to dissociate myself somewhat from the comments made by Mrs Foster, suggesting that the Commission proposals or those included in the report would spell disaster for aviation. I do not think you should try to block a sound environmental policy by making this type of threat. The Commission statement on aviation and the environment is a first step towards better European legislation. This is needed given the growth in aviation and, along with it, the growth in environmental pollution caused by it. We therefore endorse the key points of the Commission proposals. The Group of the is all for imposing European rules on the aviation industry and making it pay for the environmental pollution which it causes. As Mrs Lucas has already stated, we do not want aviation to be given preferential treatment. But today we are merely tracing an outline. What conditions must European legislation meet? We will then look forward to the further regulatory and legislative proposals which will also contain the details and specific standards. So what are the guiding principles of the Group of the ? We are at any rate of the opinion that rapid growth in aviation leads to the creation of more and better train alternatives, to give an example in terms of short-distance travel. I believe that the shift from one mode of transport to another which is more environmentally-friendly is of great importance. We do not think that capacity growth in aviation is unlimited. Secondly, we would like European noise standards: in the interests of the public and to discourage competition between certain airports. Noise at night should, in our opinion, be given more attention and we share Mrs Lucas’ view that, in the development of standards and more detailed rules, the standards of the World Health Organisation should come first. Accordingly, we are expecting ambitious proposals from the European Commission. The third point naturally relates to emissions, the emission of pollution to be precise, which, in our view, should be tackled as well. This is also why we support the principle of a tax on kerosene. However, the viability of these ideas and proposals is questionable. As stated in the report, we would like international consultation and further research. Since the outcome of this research is uncertain, we support the fall-back position, as formulated in Paragraph 20 of the report, in the form of a European environmental levy. In the final analysis, what matters is for us to follow the Kyoto agreements, and aviation should contribute substantially in this respect. We prefer to have effective agreements on noise and emission worldwide, but should these not materialise, we certainly will not rule out a European policy. I believe that that is also an important element in the report, and it has been formulated clearly in our view. We hope that international consultation will bear some fruit. Should this not be the case, we feel that we should be able to table European rules in a few years’ time.

Political group: PSE