Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-26-Speech-3-143"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030326.8.3-143"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I will keep it short, but I would like to say something to the people who might be listening to this debate there – who knows. It is very striking; this is the first time I have ever heard such a battery of members of the European People's Party/European Democrat Group all saying the same thing one after the other. For the benefit of those listening, this Parliament does actually have other groups with different opinions .
Having said that, I would like very briefly to eliminate a few prejudices. For there are people here who would dearly like to class me as ‘a bit other-worldly, a bit naïve’, ‘someone who sits in their office working out rather peculiar proposals’. I really have not done that; I have, however, had a look, I have taken advice and I have, for example, seen that there has effectively been quite significant reduction in other Member States of the European Union, like in our esteemed Commissioner’s country. What can be done in Sweden can also be done in the Netherlands, in Belgium and in the United Kingdom. We can do that if we want to. I challenge everyone to scrutinise my report. Nowhere do I say that I am opposed to pesticides. I know they are necessary, even advisable. We can, however, cut down on their use. A reduction in use naturally goes hand in hand with a reduction in risk, which I believe to be more important, but because there is a consensus on this, I have not focused on it. I have also always maintained in the committee that this 50% is not a fetish of mine. Perhaps we should put 30%, perhaps 40%, perhaps 60%, but I would definitely like to see a target. After all, we all know that if this Parliament does not set a target , we will not actually make any progress. We must make sure – and this is one of the amendments I have submitted in the plenary session – that the efforts that have already been made by the other Member States and the efforts we still need to make, which differ from Member State to Member State, are also taken into consideration. Let me once again ask the members of the European People's Party/European Democrat Group not to look at my report dogmatically. I also try not to do that myself.
I would like to say one more thing briefly. Everyone has run over their time, and they have all said the same thing, so I just want to say something about taxes. Someone said: ‘Naturally the taxes will not make the risks decrease.’ I am not stupid, I know that too. Why do we need these taxes? In order to ensure that the polluter-pays principle is implemented effectively. There are very many social costs, and I ask you: do you think that it is normal for everyone to bear the social costs or should they be borne in an honest way by the products that pollute? That is one of the many challenges."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Van Brempt (PSE )."1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples