Mr President, I have problems with the genesis of Regulation 925 of 1999 to which the resolution before us refers. It was voted through the last Parliament without any debate. It is contrary to the principle of non-discrimination. It offends against the fundamental requirement for reasons under Article 253 of the Treaty in that there is no explanation at all in the regulation for the use of the bypass ratio of an aircraft engine as a criteria when internationally approved noise and emissions standards certification for aircraft engines already exist. It is contrary to the principle of proportionality and, most importantly, it is contrary to the rules of the WTO which require the use of performance standards, not design standards, as is the case in this regulation. In whose interest was it to depart in this piece of fast-track legislation from tried-and-tested procedures and the practice of using objective performance criteria for environmental standards? This legislation rolls out the proposal made by Airbus at an Airbus-hosted meeting in Toulouse on 29 and 30 September and 1 October 1997, effectively commercially sponsored legislation. At that meeting the Members of the European Civil Aviation Council (ECAC) present were told by their legal advisor that they could not proceed under the ICAO Agreement as requested by Airbus and so Airbus persuaded the Commission to legislate where ECAC could not. We now have legislation which threatens another transatlantic trade war – but that is another issue – which does not respect best environmental practice with performance criteria and which – surprise surprise – excludes aircraft using a modern US manufactured engine while permitting the continued use of the Rolls Royce engine which conveniently has a bypass ratio of 3.1. Yes, Mr President, noise pollution affects 20% of our population, and 0.01% comes from aircraft. I fully support the necessary standards to protect the health and quality of life for our citizens. The strictest possible criteria to reduce noise and emissions from aircraft engines can only be achieved however by using performance criteria and not design criteria which is commercially sponsored and fast-track in anti-competitive legislation. Environmental legislation based on design criteria, I put it to you colleagues, is without precedent, and for good reason. I would ask with respect that the Commissioner, in the interests of probity, satisfy herself fully as to the genesis of this regulation in question to ensure the impact of its roll-out on the aviation industry world-wide. I do not care whether it is America, Europe, China or Mars – world-wide is equitable. Above all, it should serve as well as possible the important environmental objectives it purports to achieve. I fully support the objective of the regulation and we must agree on a timetable to implement noise standards, but it must be one based on objective performance criteria and not design criteria. The integrity of this House demands detailed answers to questions which raise major doubts about aspects of a regulation upon which the motion before us is based and on which we will be asked to vote tomorrow.

Political group: PPE-DE