Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-16-Speech-3-192"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020116.13.3-192"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I must first address the proposal from the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party to reject the common position. That is a proposal which we cannot support. We think it would be irresponsible not to take a decision on the Sixth Environment Action Programme.
I too should have liked the proposal to have gone much further. The original proposal was extremely weak and also vague. The fact is, however, that some of what Parliament contributed has been incorporated into the joint proposal. We shall therefore have the opportunity tomorrow to introduce a great many of the quantitative objectives and timetables we actually want to see. We must not pass up that opportunity.
We must put this proposal in its context. During the period that this environment action programme is to apply, the European Union will be enlarged through the accession of a large number of new countries. There is a danger of this causing a number of problems in terms of environmental work too. There is a danger of the work’s losing momentum, and it may become more difficult to push through new environmental laws. It would not be particularly wise to do without environment action programmes at such a stage. So that environmental work does not lose momentum, it is no doubt desirable to have a programme with timetables and practical objectives to adhere to when enlargement takes place.
My group will vote in favour both of the committee’s proposal and of all the compromise amendments we arrived at in these negotiations. We do not think the situation is perfect, but we think it is acceptable.
I wish particularly to mention Amendment No 10, which I think is important. This concerns the European Investment Bank. There were quite a lot of MEPs who voted against this amendment in the committee. I find that incomprehensible because it is an amendment which goes to the very heart of integrating environmental considerations into other policy areas, something that the European Investment Bank has not been successful at doing. What is required of the bank, namely that it take account of the environment, ought to be self-evident. That is why it is so important for them to receive the clear message that they too are not exempt from what is required. The same applies to chemicals policy, where we want to see strict wordings."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples