Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030513.2.2-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we expect a great deal of our environment, often too much. That is why it is high time for us in the European Union to create strict rules on protecting the environment, such as the uniform provisions on environmental liability that we are finally able to deal with today in plenary after lengthy preliminary wrangling in the committees responsible.
Environmental liability is not about punishing old ladies who when out walking their dogs are not conscientious about clearing up after their little darlings. We need liability provisions that place obligations on all those who cause environmental damage, without exception. If the money is coming out of their own pocket, those who end up paying for rectifying the damage will soon think twice about how they treat our environment and be more careful. That is why the Group of the Party of European Socialists is in favour of a series of amendments to the Commission text. There is absolutely no reason why the polluter pays principle should not also apply to pollution caused by the oil industry or the nuclear industry or why it should not apply to the release of genetically modified organisms. Are not the names
and
synonymous with absolutely enormous environmental problems, which still have not been overcome? Can we see why the State and therefore the community of taxpayers should have to pay for the mistakes of others, simply because the risks appear to be hard to assess or difficult to insure against? Must we virtually invite people to be careless with the environment because certain polluters are beyond the reach of the law on damages? No, most certainly not! It is therefore only logical that our Parliament should ensure that managers of companies that put the environment at risk have insurance or other precautionary financial measures in place so that they can pay for repair and restoration of the environment.
Finally, I should like to address one further point that is of particular importance to us Social Democrats. The State and therefore the people should not be landed with the responsibility or the bill for rectifying the damage and restoring the environment by the back door either. Under no circumstances! The polluter pays principle should apply always and to everyone. That is why we have tabled an amendment to Articles 4 and 5 in the form of an additional clarificatory paragraph. The purpose of this amendment is to enable the authorities responsible to set out the steps that need to be taken without having to take action themselves or incur costs in advance, which may be considerable and difficult to recover afterwards. If the plenary goes along with the amendments tabled by the Group of the Party of European Socialists and others in preference to those of the Legal Affairs Committee, we will have environmental liability legislation that assigns the costs fairly and at the same time acts preventively. In these amendments we demand a minimum of what the people of Europe rightly expect from environmental liability legislation at European level. This minimum must be reached. If the results of the individual votes mean that it is not, then to my great regret we will have to reject this important directive as a whole."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples