Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-06-Speech-3-122"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000906.5.3-122"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"This text has been lurking the procedural labyrinth for nigh on 5 years.
Although we did not support the amendment aimed at rejecting the Directive, our aim was clearly not to reward those who, in the Commission, the Council and Parliament, had worked on this text for years. We are not here to legitimise the often strange desires of the technocrats in Brussels to legislate on anything and everything. We rejected this amendment because companies need a clear framework within which to act.
The sticking point is the scope of the directive, that is, the very definition of the ‘plans and programmes’.
The mandatory part of the scope applies to plans and programmes supporting authorisations for projects in sectors such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning or land use. This mandatory part is supplemented by a selection mechanism, so-called ‘screening’, undertaken on the initiative of the Member States (the non-mandatory part).
I acknowledge that protecting the environment and taking it into consideration when evaluating policies is a necessity and even an obligation. But the Member States, in the name of subsidiarity, are in a better position to ensure that this is carried out properly. We will not support amendments aimed at enlarging the scope of application of the directive, as it must be limited to the plans and programmes that are likely to have significant repercussions.
How annoying it is when attempts are made on all sides to give greater powers to the European Union at the expense of the Member States. In this case, under the guise of concern for the environment, the rapporteur wants to take charge of all the policies of the Member States. The importance of taking the environment into consideration when evaluating policies is not in doubt, but to apply the same procedure to it, especially one that is imposed by the European Union, is inconceivable.
We have confidence in the Member States and we defend the common position. The ‘environment’ alibi is nothing more than the instrument the European Union uses to extend its control in all policy areas. We are well aware of the powers of the Union, and we know its arsenal. It uses the environment to infiltrate everywhere; it uses our water pipes to spread its tentacles into national policy. We say no to this. Like a number of other delegations, France has stated clearly that it does want the scope of application to be extended to national policies."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples