Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-09-13-Speech-1-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990913.6.1-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the Committee on the Environment, and particularly its rapporteur, Mrs McKenna, as well as the members of the Committee on Budgets, for the work and the dedication they have put into this proposal. I am sure that you will all agree with me in confirming the importance of this Community framework for cooperation with which we are trying to back up and finalise the work of the Member States in the field of accidental marine contamination, in order to make it more efficient. This framework has proved to be very useful when, in cases of severe spillage, it has been necessary to coordinate the work of various Member States.
The Commission can completely or partially accept 20 of the 29 amendments proposed, which obviously improve the proposal. Amendments Nos 3, 6, 8, 9 and 13 and part of Amendment No 15 would be acceptable in principle, although we would like them to undergo another rewrite.
The 9 remaining amendments pose difficulties for the following reasons:
Amendment No 1 and, in part, Recommendations 5, 15 and 24 make specific reference to contamination caused by radioactive substances which are already regulated by implication in the proposal. Furthermore, prevailing international agreements on the protection of the Mediterranean, Baltic and North seas, to which the Community is partially bound, all follow the same approach of not making mention of any specific substance.
Amendments Nos 10, 11, 12, 17 and 18, and the first part of Amendment No 22 have as their objective closer cooperation between countries taking part in the PHARE, TACIS and MEDA programmes. The inclusion of these amendments may make managing it difficult, given the differences between the decision-making processes and the proposed Community framework.
Amendment No 22, in the Commission’s opinion, does not conform to the recent decision on the amount of time spent in committee.
Amendment No 23, in our opinion, contravenes the Commission’s right of initiative.
In spite of these observations, I am sure that Parliament’s contribution and support will facilitate the rapid adoption of this proposal, so that continuity between the way in which the Community currently works and the programme which is due to be implemented on 1 January 2000 will be guaranteed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples