Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly the rapporteur deserves our thanks for his consistent report and his committed efforts to reach compromises, the majority of which we will be supporting. However, I have to contradict him somewhat as regards the treatment of the Environment Committee – it may have been legally correct, but from a political point of view it was not exactly optimal. On the actual substance: a third of all European airports are currently suffering noise problems; the problems are continuing to increase and the air transport sector is continuing to grow. We have seen aircraft movements double in the last ten years and perhaps it will take even less time for them to double again, because flying is becoming part of everyday life. I only have to think of the low-cost airlines, enlargement towards the east and other issues; they will quickly lead this sector out of the slump that it has been experiencing because of September 11, and, in fact, the first signs of growth are already visible. The noise problems are increasing in our cities because there is more traffic, and in the conurbations population density is also on the increase. At the same time there is also an increased desire for a better quality of life, which means that people are less willing to tolerate additional noise pollution. That is why it certainly makes sense for us to make every effort to secure a proposal for a directive which is as effective as possible. It makes sense to conclude international agreements because this is of course a global industry. The ICAO agreement on the new chapter four was secured only after laborious negotiations, but of course it does not apply straight away, and that is why it is good that we are introducing these additional possibilities for placing operational restrictions on individual airports, which will enable stricter noise emission standards to be imposed. It is also important for us to adopt a higher profile in ICAO because more international agreements are on the horizon and we will also soon have to be prepared for further international conflicts. That is why it is really important for us to consider what we want to stand up for. I only have to think of the open sky agreements and the issues which will still be on the agenda in connection with subsidised aircraft from third countries. On the other hand, it does not actually make any sense – we are not in any trouble – to curtail the parliamentary procedure, because I think that in the USA they will recognise that parliamentary procedures take time. We see three points rather differently. Firstly, we want it spelt out even more clearly that in five years' time, after the review, moves will be made to increase the limit values; we want this laid down now along with the eight decibels. Secondly, the necessary operational restrictions should take effect as quickly as possible, more quickly in our view than the Commission has proposed – this is more a reflection of the result of the vote in my group than my own personal views. Thirdly, we should perhaps reopen the discussions on the city airports after all, although the compromise which has been reached with the Council and the Commission, as it were to extend the definition so that not only the original four but all of the airports in conurbations count if they handle internal Community traffic, seems to me personally to be right, and I think that my group will also support it in the end, even if it is after some debate. I should like to make two final points: work should continue to conclude international agreements on engines and we will be discussing noise again – specifically overall noise-handling – in the context of the slot regulation, which will be exciting. I am sure that we will achieve workable compromises in the next round. Once again many thanks to the rapporteur.

Political group: PSE