Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-09-13-Speech-1-082"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990913.7.1-082"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, there is, in fact, in the report presented by Mrs Jackson, one point which concerns not so much the content but the question of which legal basis we should choose in order to try to resolve the problems of the minimum environmental criteria in Member States. The Commission has in fact proposed a recommendation. Parliament would like it to be a directive instead. This is not really, and I must repeat this, because we have a problem with the content, since none of the amendments are fundamental to the recommendation proposed by the Commission.
Why has the Commission considered that in this specific case, it was better to present a recommendation rather than a directive? Firstly, Mr President, because the Commission, before making a legislative proposal, holds appropriate consultations with Member States. Of the fifteen Member States, only one is in favour of a directive.
And once more we find ourselves caught between a rock and a hard place. When the European Commission proposes a recommendation, you in Parliament want a directive, and when the Commission proposes a directive, we should be making recommendations, because the principle of subsidiarity must be respected.
It is therefore extremely difficult, given that out of the 15 Member States, 14 think that a recommendation would be better. Firstly, because it is sometimes right to respect the principle of subsidiarity. Secondly, because we prefer the concept of shared responsibility. Thirdly, because in this case, it concerns a measure within a programme which does not exclude the possibility of presenting it as a directive in the future if the recommendation proves insufficient.
This means, firstly, that it is just a pragmatic approach, knowing that most of the Member States do not want a directive. Secondly, it would have recourse to the principle of subsidiarity. And thirdly, the Commission prefers to maintain this programme through recommendations, see the results of this phase of closer cooperation on the question of inspections, and then present a directive at some point in the future if it considers it to be appropriate. These are the explanations which I am able to give you on behalf of the European Commission."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples