Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-18-Speech-4-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060518.4.4-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is true that in a time of climate change the risk of natural disasters is growing year on year. The Union should of course address this situation, but how do we go about this? I do not feel that the right response would be to create a single European policy to combat natural disasters, as proposed in one of the reports before us. I do not share the view that, once a problem is discovered, the reaction must be to regulate at Union level. As an advocate of consistent implementation of the subsidiarity principle, I take the opposite view, namely that changes to the law at Union level should only be carried out if the Member States are not able to resolve a given problem effectively by themselves. Natural disasters cannot be understood as homogeneous phenomena with single strategies and a single legal framework. Rather, the right way forward is to diversify. Floods are of a completely different nature to, say, fires or droughts. The formulation of a European strategy should be restricted to those types of natural disaster for which there can be added value attached to joint action at Union level. Otherwise, a joint strategy and directive would be meaningless and would be tantamount to excessive regulation without any positive consequences.
I believe that the call to the Commission and the Council to table a proposal to harmonise compulsory measures aimed at punishing those who start fires is a glaring example of a violation of the subsidiarity principle. Just as fires do not usually have a European dimension, the Member States on their own should be responsible for punishing arsonists. On the other hand, I welcome the use of the proposed Galileo system for pre-empting and monitoring natural disasters across the Union, which is an important and positive aspect. As regards the Solidarity Fund Regulation, I particularly welcome the fact that financial aid will be made more accessible in the event of natural disasters, since instead of the current EUR 3 billion or 0.6% of GDP, billion-euro losses or 0.5% of GDP will be sufficient. Furthermore, where losses are lower, the Commission will, according to the proposal, be authorised to assess the situation. The Solidarity Fund will be able to help to repair any damage caused, which may for example help to improve the Union’s image in the eyes of Europe’s citizens. For this I thank all of the rapporteurs."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples