Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-15-Speech-2-394-000"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110215.22.2-394-000"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"This proposal essentially consists of a codification of the unchanged provisions of three regulations adopted between 1987 and 1990, which establish the permitted levels of radioactive contamination in the event of a radiological emergency. However, the insertion of a new recital which explains the need for an existing article, reserving for the Council the use of implementing powers, implies a substantive change which justifies the use of the recasting technique.
The content of the regulation consists of a mechanism of two levels of intervention in the event of a radiological emergency or nuclear accident, as proposed by the Commission:
the immediate adoption by the Commission of an
regulation to apply the maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination specified in Annexes I and III of the proposal to a specific case, in a definite area and for a limited period;
establishment of a period of one month following its adoption for the Commission to forward a proposal to the Council to adapt or confirm this
regulation.
As shown in the debate in the specialist committee itself and in the alternative proposals which it presents, there is a power struggle going on here between the Commission and the Council. However, the primary aim should be to serve the citizens’ interests by means of better management of post-accident situations, with respect for the competences of the Member States affected. Therefore, our final vote was one of abstention."@en1
|
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples