Two MEPs take opposing stances on new EU airport rules that may increase, not decrease, noise levels.

The din over Europe’s skies: should airports be forced to lower aircraft noise pollution?

https://api.multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/documents/20125/11795640/n003-0292-en.srt

That's a plus for the European  economy, but what about the nuisance?

Who has the power to decide on measures  regarding noise around airports?

According to a coming regulation, decisions  should be taken in a balanced way

combining transparency and profitability.

We asked for the views of  Belgian MEP Isabelle Durant

Is this a bill to protect the airport industry

We're protecting the economic activity  and development of airports.

The Commission doesn't deny that.  It wants to boost the airport sector.

The problem is that with this regulation  the Commission will bring in a system

which will make it even harder for Member  States to restrict airport operations.

At airports like Brussels or others where  the city is very close to the airport site,

we must give the national authorities  the ability to reduce noise at the source.

Neither. The European Commission  wanted to get permission to interfere

in national air noise measures.  That was the whole point of this regulation.

The first question we asked ourselves was  if this was actually necessary.

The second question was  how we would deal with it.

The answer to the first one was  that it's not actually necessary,

so the answer to the second one  was relatively clear:

We have to restore the original situation.

Does that mean that  the European night curfew

banning take-offs between 10pm and 7am  is in danger?

It is clearly in danger with this regulation.

This curfew might be ceded  and made shorter,

which would, of course, further damage  the lives of those living near airports.

we'd really be giving up instruments  which national authorities need,

at any rate, those with an airport  close to their cities,

when they decide to protect their citizens.  That's not right.

I think another directive should determine  the standards in Europe,

what must be taken into account.  I'd be in favour of it.

Those criticising the vote don't know that  this directive had a different aim,

that this regulation had a different aim:

to make it possible for national measures  to be lifted. But we prevented this.

Some say this is giving carte blanche  to airport operators. Are they right?

It's not exactly what they want because  they will have to ask the Commission

for authorisation.  They can't do whatever they want.

But we would be taking away requirements

which they judged too tedious or difficult  with national or local authorities,

which were defending the quality of life  of those living nearby.

I think we shouldn't confront those  two things. We can look for solutions

where we can have airports close to cities  which are urban airports,

limited in number of movements  and type of aircraft,

and airports in less problematic places,  which can be international hubs.

That's nonsense. The directive  has nothing to do with it.

Before philosophising on all of that, the  concrete legal text should be dealt with.

Sometimes I suspect that some of those  who have a say here

are neither in the Transport Committee  nor have been working on the issue before,

and say something that sounds good  in times of the election campaign,

I do understand that, but in discussions  on transport policy it should be avoided.

It can always be better.  For example, what I wanted

but where a compromise couldn't be  achieved,

was to include health issues  in the decision-making process.

I would have preferred that. Unfortunately  we didn't have the majority for it.

I put myself in the place of those  running cities very close to an airport,

where for reasons of investment in the past  or for reasons of safety -

aircraft can't take off in any direction -

huge numbers of people  are exposed to noise.

That is a social problem,  a real public health problem,

and it deserves everyone's attention,  including the Commission and MEPs.

Air travel is a particularly polluting  form of transport,

but the environmental question isn't  in the proposed regulation. Is that right?

This didn't fall within the competence  of the law.

It was about telling off the Commission:

'You will not lift our national measures'.

But the next question is how  these national measures are to be created,

That's where we need a general regulation  including all necessary aspects.

But to be honest, that's another discussion  which is often had in an election campaign.

I understand that, but normally it  shouldn't be had in an election campaign.

That's the other aspect. We've talked  about noise, but there's the rest.

Atmospheric harm, pollution,  the fact that kerosene isn't taxed,

so the air industry is boosted,  receives subsidies which are unreasonable

compared to less polluting  forms of transport.

Having been on the Transport Committee  for five years,

we don't find sustainable transport  development in the transport sector.

In the EP Transport Committee,  it's about business.