Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-13-Speech-2-356"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011113.14.2-356"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here not with a legislative procedure, nor with a White or Green Paper, but exclusively with the implementation of Article 9 of the framework directive on water, which very precisely indicates how the costs of water services are to be covered. By 2010 at the latest, the Member States have to ensure that their policy on water charges offers appropriate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently, and that it takes into account the social, ecological and economic effects of covering the costs and the geographical and climatic conditions of the region in question.
I have therefore attempted to make it clear in my report that the exploitability of our water resources must be maintained, for future generations as well, that we must keep to proven ways of keeping water pure and providing the population with clean drinking water, but that we may also look into new ways of doing this. In doing this, universal supply and drainage, high environmental standards, quality of provision and affordable prices must all be safeguarded.
It should be possible to introduce business instruments and involve private enterprise, but also achieve proportionate optimisation of the operational structures involved in providing water supplies. I myself say an emphatic ‘No’ to the deregulation of water supply and drainage, but I say ‘Yes’ to every country being able to use its water in the way that the people want. I say ‘Yes’ to solidarity in water use within Europe, but this must not be invoked to force any Member State to make its water available to another Member State without charge.
On the subject of the many amendments that have been proposed, I would just like to say briefly one thing: It is marvellous to repeat things that are important, and also to repeat them over and over again. It is also very difficult to speak against things that are right and important, especially if they have long been part of legislation and of a directive, such as the water framework directive. But the question arises of how suitable it is to proceed in this way. Since we are today only drawing up guidelines rather than legislating, I would say: so what?
One amendment really hurts me – the one which, as it were, condemns a certain Member State because of a project which really is purely an internal matter for that State and the environmental effects of which have not yet been assessed and in respect of which, as and when European Union funds are actually granted, the laws of the European Union will of course have to be abided by. If I may establish a disagreeable precedent, I would be very happy if this amendment were perhaps to be voted down.
I found the Commission document very good. I also think it a good thing that Parliament, in contrast to the practice in many Member States, can also be heard on the subject of a law's implementing regulation. I would like to hope that the Commission and the Council will find their efforts supported by Parliament's opinion."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples