Mr President, as has become clear we asked that question because Regulation (EC) No 925/99 on the reduction of aircraft noise must enter into force very soon, while in the meantime there are ongoing talks between Mrs de Palacio and the US, which has found the regulation, which was approved by the Council and Parliament, disturbing and is calling for its withdrawal and suspension. As is clear, the regulation was adopted in order to protect the environment and the public. At the same time, however, it seems that the regulation affects the interests of the American aircraft industry. To show good faith, the Council and Parliament postponed the regulation’s entry into force by one year. Despite our positive attitude, the Americans for their part have shown supreme arrogance especially towards the European Parliament, calling as I said earlier for the regulation to be withdrawn at first and then, as a slight concession, speaking about indefinite suspension. As we know, Mrs de Palacio was authorised by the Council of Ministers to negotiate with the US. I have no doubt that aside from being lengthy, those talks were also difficult. A time came when it seemed that some progress had been made, though far from anything that could be considered satisfactory, but in the end even that slight progress has vanished in the last few days, since the US has petitioned the ICAO under Article 84 of the Chicago Convention against the European Union concerning the regulation whose purpose, as I said, is to protect the environment. For our part, we wish to make it abundantly clear that we have no desire to create tensions with the US. We do not want a trade war, we want no problems in our relations, and we regard them as allies and friends. However, as they themselves would say, they must understand that ‘it takes two to tango’. Our position, then, is as follows: - firstly, our strategy must aim for global agreement on much stricter standards on aircraft noise; - secondly, if there is no agreement, then it is clear that the European Union will have to act unilaterally; - thirdly, we consider that the position of the United States, calling for withdrawal of the regulation or indefinite suspension of its implementation, is totally unacceptable; - fourthly, we welcome the progress made within the Committee on Aviation Environment Protection towards gradually phasing out any noisy aircraft in circulation today; - fifthly, we oppose any further delay in the regulation’s entry into force for aircraft of the Member States, and this because we regard the issue as an internal one and we cannot consider the Americans competent to determine what we do about our own aircraft, - and sixthly, we are prepared to review Regulation (EC) No 925/99 on aircraft registered in third countries provided, however, that in the interim agreement is reached within the ICAO on new standards. If good faith prevails, that agreement can become a reality. Meanwhile, however, there is no reason to suspend the regulation for third-country aircraft, for the very simple reason that the regulation concerning such aircraft only enters into force in 2002. In that sense I cannot understand the insistence of the US, who continually talk about the suspension of our own regulation. And, of course, we believe the US ought to withdraw their petition to the ICAO under Article 84 of the Chicago Convention, because that kind of action blows the spirit of cooperation sky-high. Mr President, I want to conclude with two respective observations. The first is this: it must be made clear who is negotiating on the US side. We know who our negotiator is, it is Mrs de Palacio, and to date she has proved a very good negotiator. As for the other side, it is not clear who the negotiator is. This is preventing us from having a stable position from the US, and is also thwarting our own efforts. The second observation is this: the US must understand that the European Parliament is no longer the body it used to be, in previous decades. It is now a powerful body. So they must understand that besides the Council, they must also talk to Parliament and take its views very seriously, because without Parliament there can be no progress. So if they want us to help them, they must first help us, they must first contribute towards progress by showing goodwill. With these thoughts, therefore, I would like to ask the Commissioner and the Council what their positions are.

Political group: PPE-DE