President. – The next item is the report (A5-0053/2002) by Georg Jarzembowski, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (COM(2001) 695 – C5-0667/2001 – 2001/0282(COD)).

  Jarzembowski (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, visitors in the gallery, we now turn to a Commission proposal to further reduce noise in and around airports. This proposal implements an agreement which was adopted at the ICAO Assembly in the autumn of last year and which applies throughout the world. Personally, of course, I have certain reservations about it because at the ICAO Assembly the entire system was changed. They abandoned the system of taking certain types of aircraft out of use altogether or suspending their use and moved over to a so-called 'balanced approach', whereby, instead of the aircraft being assessed, the noise situation at each individual airport is assessed and suitable restrictions are introduced.

Apart from this general reservation – and after five years these provisions will be reviewed – we as a committee believe that we should implement the international agreements reached in Montreal, along with this approach of finding a balanced solution for each airport. This kind of noise protection, which will vary from airport to airport, at the same time makes it possible for us to repeal the hushkit regulation. We would have got into some difficulties with the USA and other third countries on account of this hushkit regulation, because from 1 April of this year the landing rights of these aircraft would automatically have been suspended.

Thanks to the new balanced approach, which we have had since Montreal, we can do without the hushkit regulation and thus end the conflict with the USA, but here I also want to say loud and clear that the Americans should not forget to withdraw their Article 84 complaints if we withdraw our hushkit regulation.

Because of the 1 April limit, we had to process the legislation quickly, and I have to say that our efforts have been very successful. There were some initial difficulties determining responsibility for the dossier with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, but we agreed that the Environment Committee would draft an opinion. We incorporated this in our report and held an informal trilogue procedure with the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, thus avoiding any dispute between the environment and transport areas in this House. I should like to thank the Vice-President and also the Council representatives very much for enabling the informal trilogue to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

I should like to inform the House that there are two technical amendments which I will be tabling tomorrow, because in our haste we allowed two editorial errors to slip in. There are discrepancies between what we agreed with the Council and what the amendments actually say. But we will make the necessary corrections.

On the substance, I should like to point out that we in Parliament have been successful on two central points. We have succeeded in changing the definition of the city airport. Until now airports have only been classified as city airports if there has been another alternative airport nearby. This has meant that there have been hardly any city airports. We have extended this definition by leaving out the alternative airport requirement. However, we did not get too carried away, so as to avoid a conflict with the Americans, and have said, city airports are airports as defined in Annex I. This can be amended by the Member States and the Commission in the committee procedure. This gives us the possibility of introducing more stringent rules on noise protection in particularly noisy areas and at particularly noisy airports. However, and here I turn to my socialist friends in this room, the general call to increase the limit from -5 EPNdB to -8 EPNdB would lead to a conflict with the USA and would also cause internal difficulties, because the Member States are not at all willing to accept more stringent standards, and at the moment the airports do not want these either. This means that we should actually stick to -5 here. In difficult situations we can use the definition of the city airport as a way out. That is why I urge the House not to support Amendments Nos 21 and 22 so as not to jeopardise the compromise with the Council.

Secondly – and this is also for all of the environmentally-friendly Members of this House – we have obtained the Council's agreement that we already state now, in respect of the review in five years' time, that after these five years we should seek to establish a more stringent limit than -5. This means that we have sent out a clear signal that we want to take account of public sensitivities and public health. But the same public wants to go on holiday; the same public wants to fly to the European Parliament. We therefore need to reach a compromise between the interests of the people who want to fly and the interests of those who live near airports. I believe that we have found that compromise.

I would earnestly request that tomorrow the whole House convincingly approve the measures that we negotiated with the Council with the help of the Commission's conciliation services, because then we can conclude this difficult issue – which is so important in terms of foreign policy – at first reading.

  Blokland (EDD), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – (NL) Mr President, the topic of aircraft noise often gives rise to conflicts, conflicts between the European Union and the United States and conflicts among European Parliament committees.

The solution to the conflict with the United States is very close. Tomorrow, the plenary session can simply end the conflict by accepting the compromise that was reached with the Council. As far as the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy is concerned, this will not pose a huge problem since the following four points have been resolved satisfactorily.

First of all, the scope to designate airports as city airports has been widened. This helps combat noise pollution, since city airports are allowed to take more stringent measures.

Secondly, the research obligations from Annex II have now been formulated in such a way as not to constitute an unnecessary barrier to measures.

Thirdly, the possibility has been created to ban subsequent phases of aircraft after five years.

Fourthly, the exemption regulation for developing countries is now restricted to a ten-year period.

A total of 33 compromise amendments have been tabled, as a result of which most amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy can lapse. However, I only tabled the first two amendments of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy by way of supplement. Environmental considerations, in particular, must be integrated in transport policy in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty.

As rapporteur Jarzembowski remarked a moment ago, there were a few minor changes submitted, including oral additions to the amendments tabled and also the change to Amendment No 12, which have led us to achieve complete agreement.

I recommend that the plenary session tomorrow support the compromise package, so that the legislative process can be concluded in one reading. This is important in order to solve a long, drawn-out conflict with the United States involving the Hushkits Regulation.

Finally, as far as the conflict between EP committees is concerned, I have no choice but to conclude that this report has wrongly been designated to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. Fortunately, thanks to sound cooperation with Mr Jarzembowski, we have reached agreement with the Council. We will therefore leave this conflict for what it was.

  Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE). – (NL) Could I, too, say to Mr Jarzembowski: all is well that ends well? The fact that we eventually ended up singing from the same hymn sheet has given me enormous pleasure.

Mr President, noise pollution around airports is always an emotive subject for the citizens who live near them, and Mr Jarzembowski who lives in Hamburg, knows this all too well. What can be done about this? There are two types of measures. One, you can develop aircraft which emit low noise levels; you can regulate daytime and night-time operating; noise levels can be measured – measurements are hard facts – and certain types of aircraft can be banned. This is precisely what we have done: we have banned the noisy aircraft, the hushkits, and I was all for it.

However, when all these measures have been taken, something else can be done, namely insulating and zoning. They are incredibly costly, very expensive indeed, not only to the government, for what the government spends is ultimately the expense of the citizens. This meant, therefore, that when the ban on aircraft created problems, we had to consider new measures. The Hushkits Regulation had to be scrapped. The Commissioner had no other choice. She started to negotiate with the Member States and a new idea was born, an idea which, at the moment, I am giving the benefit of the doubt.

And why the benefit of the doubt? If we consider the effects which the new measures that were agreed in ICAO context worldwide have had, not only on the European population but also on the populations in all other cities across the world, then I believe it was a useful exercise.

I would like to thank Mr Blokland who managed to tighten a few aspects, and I am well-supported in this by the PPE-DE section of our group in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Adaptations have been made and refined, and, Mr President, I have to tell you that, if I could end each issue on this note, I would continue to be on very good terms with Mr Jarzembowski. And I wish you, Commissioner, every success.

  Stockmann (PSE). – (DE) 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.

  Sterckx (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, is what we have ideal? I do not think so. However, in the current circumstances, this is the best we can commit to paper, in my view. It is always easy to draft a series of standards just for the European Union, making them so strict in the process that while we may be happy with them, they may make it impossible for the average company to operate. We had the choice. We held a debate on whether to opt for an international, global or European solution. Given the present circumstances, we made a sensible choice. Moreover, it is on the strength of what we said that this strict standard was copied internationally. If all Member States have accepted this standard within the ICAO, it seems necessary to me that we, as a Community institution, ensure that this standard becomes law in the Union. I, for one, support this principle, and I think that the rapporteurs, both those of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and those of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy have done sterling work. As I belong to both these committees, I do not feel the ambivalence which some fellow MEPs do feel. I feel happy on both sides. This is also because the directive offers the necessary flexibility, since a system has been provided for which allows for an individual approach tailored to each airport, so that measures can be selected within a European framework. This, at least, guarantees a certain level of equality in the treatment of people who suffer from noise pollution. In the final analysis, this is the whole object of the exercise: to ensure that people are affected as little as possible and to reconcile – at least up to a certain degree – two aspects which are, in fact, irreconcilable.

Although the review after five years will involve a tightening up of legislation, there is, in my opinion, no need to establish a limit at this stage. This would be very unwise, in my view, and it could, in fact, undermine the entire proposal, which would be a very bad development, for we need to move forward quickly. Parliament must, therefore, approve this proposal, so that there is a legislative document by 1 April, upon which we can withdraw the hushkits directive.

For this we must take another look at Article 5(1), and we are in agreement on this. This is what we are planning to do, and I should like to ask the Commissioner whether she could not ensure that a uniform, Community method of measurement be established for this kind of noise, for that is still not available. In my view, you should draft a bill on how noise is measured, so that we can establish objectively how measurements are to be carried out, applicable to every airport uniformly. This initiative would also benefit the joint discussion on this issue.

  Lannoye (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, I do not share the enthusiasm of the majority of our fellow Members for the result obtained with regard to this directive. In fact, I think that, as regards the noise reduction policy which concerns in particular those living near airports, this seems to be a step backwards. The proposal repeals the Council regulation that should have entered into force on 1 April 2002 preventing hushkit planes, old planes fitted with muffling devices, but whose overall performance was recognised as insufficient, from landing. This regulation is replaced by a directive based on an approach to noise management which is supposedly balanced, but which, in fact, restricts the margin for manoeuvre by the Member States with regard to combating noise pollution and prolongs the life of hushkit planes. The amendments proposed by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and approved by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy may well improve the original text. Nevertheless, we are still in a situation where the Member States who will not do anything to assist in combating noise pollution in the vicinity of their airports will in fact be practising a dumping policy which could increase over the next few years insofar as we are currently experiencing a significant rise in air traffic. In addition to this, the legislation allowing specific action to be taken is relatively complex and will therefore slow down initiatives.

I would like to point out in this respect that, a few months ago, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of people living near Heathrow airport in London who were complaining of nocturnal noise, and the right to a healthy environment and the right to sleep were recognised as human rights. I therefore believe that in keeping with this decision of the Court of Human Rights, the Commission must quickly take a new initiative, a directive that not only restricts noise in the vicinity of airports, but lays down standards on noise exposure, thus allowing for harmony within the European Union.

  Foster (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to thank my colleague, Mr Jarzembowski, for all his hard work. As Mr Jarzembowski has explained, it is extremely important that this directive repeals the original hushkit regulation within the timeframe laid down. Without doubt, having discussed the hushkit issue on and off since many of us were elected in 1999 and for many years before, it will come as a relief that this debate can reach a conclusion. It is worth reminding some of our colleagues that, when the agreement was reached between the EU and the US at the ICAO meeting in Montreal, all Member States were represented and agreed with the proposals that were put forward. The key to those proposals was to take the balanced approach. If we are to have any credibility it would be ludicrous if we in this Parliament then reneged on what has been agreed.

Speaking as someone who has lived close to London Heathrow, the busiest international airport in the world, for 30 years, and acknowledging the prosperity and jobs which flow from a successful industry, I find it extremely disappointing that perhaps some Members would prefer to score party political points rather than take on board the broader picture of what is required.

What would not be acceptable would be for any airport within the EU to be in a position to arbitrarily prevent or stop legitimate carriers from operating into and out of their airport. The decision has to be made at Member State level in order to ensure a uniform application of any rules laid down. However, if we are to improve congestion and noise pollution for the future, I suggest that Member States and local authorities take responsibility for proper land use planning and think carefully before using the aviation industry as a scapegoat for their failures.

Finally, having read through the additional amendments, many of which have been retabled predominantly by the Committee on the Environment, I found it somewhat disappointing that those Members found it necessary to go along that path. I hope that they will think seriously about their actions and support the rapporteur when we vote on this report tomorrow. International agreements are the way forward and we should continue to build on the agreement which was reached in Montreal.

  Bowe (PSE). – Mr President, I have listened very carefully to the debate so far and I was very interested in what Mr Stercks and Mr Lannoye said. To understand properly much of what they have said, one must consider the history. For many years, there was no sign at all of ICAO taking any action to deal with the problem of growing aircraft noise so we in this Parliament took action. We introduced the hushkits regulation which suspended the use of aircraft not retrospectively fitted with noise suppressors – the hushkits starting in April 2002. Then suddenly, there was action. The Americans threatened legal action and sanctions and ICAO seemed to wake up. ICAO proposed new and better noise standards and guidance on sensible operating restrictions around airports. We are now asked though to rescind our regulation and to accept this new directive, which is quite clearly much watered-down, and to expect ICAO to agree on some new international standards as soon as possible. I will probably go along with this at the vote tomorrow because I agree that something is better than nothing, but we can only expect only some small improvements, and only potential improvement at that.

I have to say that I am not convinced that there will be any real improvement at international level unless it is very slow as is the custom with ICAO. Therefore, if the Commission does finally get around to sending us a report in five years' time, we might just get a chance to see what this muddled arrangement has produced. I look forward to the report. I look forward to returning to the debate and I hope Mr Jarzembowski is happy with himself because I am not sure that I am.

  De Roo (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Who wants incredibly noisy aircraft in Europe? Answer: the United States administration, both under Clinton and Bush. From 1 April next, they want to send old, incredibly noisy aircraft with silencers to Europe. Europe had already decided that these aircraft, fitted with a so-called hushkit, should be phased out after 1 April. However, the US Government, which sells high numbers of these hushkits to airline companies in developing countries, has lobbied hard and effectively. Instead of a general ban for the whole of Europe, the European Commission now wants each airport to document the fact that it does not want these noisy aircraft. Of course, if you really want to, you can still stop these wretched old things. But the result will be that an increasing number of these noisy old bangers will move to smaller airports. From London to Manchester, from Maastricht to Bierset. This is something I cannot endorse.

  Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, as an aside, I should like to inform you that the Irish have just won the first race at the Cheltenham festival. I thought you might be interested.

My views on the present hushkit legislation are on the record. It was very questionably driven by design criteria and not performance criteria. So I welcome this adoption of an ICAO balanced approach to air traffic noise reduction as it amounts to a fundamental system change for the European Union. However, I have many reservations.

This Commission proposal states that noise reduction efforts are now to be assessed on the basis of individual airports, with a view to imposing operating restrictions on aircraft. It has opted for the airport-based approach along the lines of ICAO Resolution A337. I support a package of measures for our larger and busier airports covering aspects such as land-use planning and management, operational restrictions and a ban on the noisier Chapter 3 aircraft. However, as others have said, the effectiveness or otherwise of this proposal as a means of reducing air traffic noise will only be known after the Commission has submitted its report on its findings in over five years' time.

I would particularly like to congratulate our rapporteur, Mr Jarzembowski, for his hard work and the close contact he has maintained with both the Presidency-in-Office and the Commission in an effort to find a way forward and – given the critical deadline of 1 April – to prevent a legislative vacuum from occurring. It is imperative for all of us in this House, if possible, to avoid a second reading. That said, it is extremely unsatisfactory for us, as legislators to have been asked to rush through such a technical piece of legislation. I am not happy about the whole procedure.

I would, however, like to sound a note of caution. Although these proposals are very necessary and overdue in the context of the hushkits regulation and the US complaint and, indeed, the recent opinion of the Advocate General, the UK Government's position points out some flaws in the Commission's approach. So the 1 April deadline still looks rather ambitious.

  De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, this proposal by Mr Jarzembowski seeks to achieve two things: a uniform approach to what is a global problem, and also a solution to the conflict with the United States. Like most Members in this House, I give this proposal my support, but it is only qualified support. There are serious problems with the way in which it is being achieved and also with the nature of the compromise that is being achieved.

I have serious problems with a system which relies on informal negotiations between individual Members of this House, the Council and the Commission. It restrains the role of the elected Members of this House to an undue degree. We must find some fast-track codecision procedure which can be used in these circumstances and fully respects the role of the Members of this House.

Secondly, the people who suffer as a result of the noise levels from aircraft and the operation of airports are the people who live immediately in the vicinity, particularly those on flight paths. We will have to judge this proposal on whether or not their lives improve over the next five years. And while we have a proposal here that the Commission will report back to us in five years' time as to whether we are achieving what we set out to achieve, I hope that the Commission will come back here each year and tell us in what direction things are moving – whether the proposals are working, whether things are getting better or indeed in some cases getting worse – so that we can introduce corrective actions, rather than waiting for five years before beginning to take alternative steps.

I realise that a number of amendments which are good amendments in their own right are going to be rejected here tomorrow, but the Commission and Council should bear in mind that they are being rejected in order to facilitate this agreement, not because we disagree with them.

  Vatanen (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, Mrs de Palacio, pollution abatement is a noble but difficult struggle, a delicate balance between economic prosperity and human welfare. Nevertheless, health and the economy are inseparable companions in the long run. For that reason I too am pleased with the approach proposed by the Commission. Noise should be reduced where that is needed most. There is no real need for noise reduction at airports located a long way from where people live, so if a straitjacket were to apply in all situations there would be a slowdown in the economy for no good reason, and it is always the poor who are the first to suffer.

I am also pleased that we were able to get the committee to approve some useful adjustments. It has to be made clear that the directive cannot apply to small aircraft, because nothing would be gained by banning them, although I am sure the radicals would like to protect deer and wild boars too from the sound of aircraft.

Mr Jarzembowski has once again done a very professional job. He has had to negotiate with the Council and the Commission under heavy pressure. Not all my colleagues, however, have taken such a responsible view of the matter. There were many amendments tabled despite the fact that we are in danger of a trade dispute with the United States of America if we do not use this directive to quash the hushkit regulation before its entry into force. I strongly condemn the new US steel tariffs, but, in spite of that, Europe must not pick a quarrel. We, for our own part, can set a good example of how to manage trade policy. May President Bush learn a lesson from it.

I believe we have found a good compromise, and we should proceed from that. The best way to bring down noise levels, however, is by an international agreement on a reduction in aircraft noise. A totally silent world is hardly possible nor even desirable. One day, though, a jumbo jet or the new and large – by European standards – Airbus will be emitting less noise than a flock of crows. There is no reason for us yet, however, to prescribe limits for the noise made by crows.

  De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, I am not going to insist on identifying the precedents which have led us to today’s discussion, which I hope will lead to a positive result tomorrow, because we all know what has happened following the negative attitude of a series of Member States of the ICAO and we all want to make progress in the fight against noise at airports. We are also aware of the decision which the European Union adopted in relation to a certain type of modified aircraft which conforms to Chapter III and the circumstances which have led us to the current situation. What I wish to do first is to warmly thank Mr Jarzembowski for the wonderful work he has done on a very delicate issue and also Mr Blokland for the series of very positive amendments – in terms of the environment – which he has contributed to this Commission proposal.

I believe that it is very important – and everybody here has said so – that today we find a solution, which, as Mr Sterckx said, and I agree with him, is not the ideal solution, but which at least represents a step forward and prevents further clashes with third countries. We must understand that we are part of a multilateral system; that, thanks to the decision of the European Union, things have moved on within the ICAO and the situation has improved and that we now have a proposal which offers us clear opportunities to improve the situation of airports in the future.

I perfectly understand that we have many amendments and that, if we did not have international commitments which are binding of all of us, the honourable Members would probably like to support them. I would ask you tomorrow to bring that international agreement within our reach; that we may have a proposal which supports what the 15 countries of the Union have decided, voted for and supported within the ICAO. I would therefore like to thank Mr Jarzembowski and Mr Blokland and the two committees for their ambitious and at the same time realistic work and efforts, which show common sense and support for the decision of the 15 countries in the ICAO and therefore for the international decision.

I believe that, after removing the requirement for an alternative airport, the definition of an urban airport hugely broadens the scope and this is positive. We could not reduce the number of movements to 30 000 since, amongst other things, it would contradict the limit laid down in the directive on environmental noise, which this very Parliament approved recently.

I believe that the definition of the competent authority has improved and allows for the appropriate margins. I would also like to insist once again that we are not obliging any Member State to create a new body, but that the competent authority in each case will be defined and determined by the Member State in question, and it is therefore necessary that the State in question does define and determine it, and I would like to point out that we agree with Parliament that it is essential to make it clear that operative restrictions, according to the acoustic level, are based on methodologies described in the third edition of volume 1 of Annex XVI of the ICAO. This document has been agreed at international level and we would not accept any less rigorous document.

It is also clear that, if the operative restrictions were not based on acoustic levels, but on the runway and the time, it would be difficult for us to refer to this Annex.

With regard to the obligation to carry out analysis, the amount of information has been an issue on which a careful balance has been achieved: Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2. On the one hand, we do not want to impose unnecessary burdens on airports or on the States of the Union, but, on the other hand, we must ensure that we have a suitable basis for decision making. Even in the event that an airport does not propose significant operative restrictions, we believe that it will be to their benefit to make as complete an analysis as possible in order to make decisions in full knowledge of the facts.

We have studied very carefully the rhythm which the airports could impose with the withdrawal of aircraft from the fleets in question and we are convinced that this reference should be made according to movements. I believe that a minimum of five years is a very tough requirement and we could not therefore reduce this time period even further.

With regard to the developing countries, the Commission has carried out a detailed study which has concluded that these countries have acted in a responsible way by reducing their fleets of Chapter II aircraft and we applaud this action. We must be fair towards these operators and I believe that the compromise amendment presented is a solution we can support.

The Commission would also like to express its support for a general exemption applicable to genuinely exceptional services, for humanitarian reasons or maintenance work which cannot be carried out elsewhere for example.

Ladies and gentlemen, the fact that decisions are taken in a coherent way throughout the Community is a fundamental step forwards. This means that we have the opportunity to replace the current patchwork of restrictions with prepared measures within a coherent framework of analysis, in such a way that similar solutions will be applied in European airports which have similar problems.

I believe that we have an applicable directive which conforms to our international obligations and which, furthermore, will contribute to improving the quality of life of the citizens who live close to airports. In this respect, Mr President, I would like once again to thank the two rapporteurs and the honourable Members for their work and I am grateful for the cooperation and understanding of Parliament, which wanted to participate in this very difficult exercise of adopting legislation in record time, which allows us to prevent other types of problem in the international field.

Thank you very much, Mr President. I hope that tomorrow the vote and the support of the honourable Members will allow us once and for all to resolve this issue which we have been dealing with for far too long.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will be taken tomorrow at 12 noon.