Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-14-Speech-2-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060314.21.2-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"There are good reasons for the Member States’ governments to give priority to measures that reduce the risk of natural disasters striking. We nonetheless question whether the EU should have the prominent role that the European Parliament wants it to have in this connection. Among other things, the European Parliament wants:
the EU to play an active role in preventing disasters such as serious drought in Spain and Portugal or fires in southern European countries;
the EU to become involved in disasters outside the EU through, for example, civil protection intervention;
and the budget for a Rapid Response and Preparedness Instrument to be increased by EUR 105 million (in excess of the figure proposed by the Commission) for the period 2007–2013.
We believe that it is primarily the task of each Member State to take action in connection with natural disasters. Many forms of natural disaster (such as drought and fires) are recurrent and can be predicted. It should be entirely possible for the Member States independently to make the investments that minimise the risk of this type of disaster striking.
What is more, the UN already has a system in operation for helping countries hit by disasters and serious accidents. The Member States might do well to use this system instead of developing a parallel structure and thus risking unnecessary duplication of effort. On the basis of this reasoning, we have chosen to vote against this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples