Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-376"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000705.12.3-376"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, may I first of all thank the rapporteur, Mrs Jackson, and the Committee on the Environment for its work on this proposal on environmental inspections. I cannot resist the temptation to point out to Mrs Jackson that she reminds me of my promise to the Committee on the Environment not to propose new directives all the time, but rather to concentrate on implementation. The bad implementation of environmental rules has nothing to do with the lack of such rules and directives. We have a lot of these and we really want to achieve something. We want to see results.
However, if the proposal is to remain in the form of a recommendation, the Commission can accept in principle Amendments Nos 2, 10, second part, and 15, second part, in relation to point 9.1. They all concern the involvement of the EEA and/or IMPEL in certain activities relating to inspections. These were accepted by the Commission at the first reading stage and included in the Commission's revised proposal.
So we came straight to the key issue: was it to be a recommendation or a directive? It will not be a surprise to you that the Commission cannot agree to the proposed change to a directive, for the following reasons. The Commission's 1996 communication on implementing Community environmental law noted a disparity between Member States' inspection systems and recognised the necessity of ensuring that minimum inspection tasks were performed. Maybe it is not such a bad idea to have those people in blue uniforms with gold stars to check on what is happening!
It recommended that guidelines should be established, leaving to the Member States the choice of structures and mechanisms, fitting in where appropriate with their existing systems.
A recommendation will achieve something. Some Member States already have well-developed inspectorates or agencies, and the guidelines will ensure that they operate them in accordance with common standards without necessarily having to change their systems that much. For those Member States which do not, the recommendation will be helpful to enable them in the first instance, with the possibility of Community funding for eligible Member States, to develop their infrastructure and capacity.
A directive might mean that some Member States will have great difficulty complying with it in its entirety from its coming into force, and this was not deemed to be practically or psychologically desirable by the Commission. I am convinced that the ‘carrot’ rather than the ‘stick’ approach will achieve a better result at the present state of development of national inspectorates.
We have already achieved some progress in the area with the IMPEL inspectors' exchange programme and the other work that IMPEL has done on inspections, monitoring frequency of inspections etc.
This proposal should therefore be viewed as the first step in an ongoing programme, and the experience gained in this operation will help us to consider at subsequent stages how to broaden the nature, scope and application of the minimum requirements. The proposal requires Member States to report back on the operation, and I will take a personal interest in this. If it transpires that Member States are not applying it in practice then we will not shrink from bringing forward a proposal for a directive.
The attitude in the Council of the Member States, even those with well-developed inspectorates, was unanimously in favour of non-binding legislation at this stage. Being realistic, if Parliament insists on asking for a directive we will end up with no instrument at all. In that case we will have failed those Member States most in need of assistance and guidance, and the consequence will be no change in the status quo and no improvement in those Member States' implementation. For these reasons the Commission cannot accept any of the proposed amendments relating to changing the form of the proposal from a recommendation to a directive.
The Commission cannot accept the following amendments of substance: Amendment No 5 to help Member States distinguish between national – for example non-EU derived – law and EU law. Amendments Nos 6 and 11 which try to change voluntary reporting and advice schemes to mandatory ones. Amendment No 12, second part, because it does not add anything. The proposal already refers to reports being in a readily accessible database. Amendment No 13, second part, relating to reports of site visits being available within two months of inspection because the common position's wording “as soon as possible” is preferable. And Amendment No 14 which seeks to limit to brief data the compliance information in reports to the Commission, which is not sufficient for the Commission's purposes."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples