Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-06-Speech-3-060"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-09-06"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Environmental effects of certain programmes2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000906.3.3-060"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-09-06-Speech-3-0612
lpv:speaker	lp:Bernd Lange2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with South Africa (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a new instrument and it accords with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which concerns the integration of environmental policies into other areas. It is a delicate flower and we all want it to be a success. I also want it to be well received by my electorate back home. Hence I sometimes ask myself the questions that they ask themselves. When I look at the Council’s proposal, I assume that people will ask themselves this: how can the EU introduce an assessment regime that excludes the plans and projects financed by the European Union itself? This is completely unacceptable, and that is precisely how I see it. The scope of application must be extended to include areas that are financed by the European Union. Secondly, the people of Germany, in particular, may well ask themselves why the assessments are to be carried out at state level, national level, regional administration level, and at local level, which will drag the procedures out. This is indefensible in my view. It is the real issues that count, not having the same thing assessed at every level. Therefore we must make it clear that a duplication of effort must be avoided. Accordingly, Guido Sacconi’s Amendment No 31 has my unequivocal support. A third question the people may ask themselves is this: why is nothing happening now that an assessment has taken place which may have raised certain issues? Therefore we must make it clear that the regulation is binding. We certainly cannot have a situation where an assessment is carried out and the findings are then filed away, never to be seen again. We need a binding commitment to the effect that any findings will be acted on. Therefore, I emphatically support Amendments Nos 17 and 18, which provide for us to make the transposition of environmental protection measures following assessment a little more binding in nature. With this in mind, I wish Mrs Schörling’s report every success."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph