Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-021"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-05-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Environmental liability2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030513.2.2-021"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-05-13-Speech-2-0222
lpv:speaker	lp:Chris Davies2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, like other Members here today, I have been lobbied extensively about this directive and I have been impressed by the degree of support – or at least the support in principle – for it. Environmentalists regard it as a holy grail, the means by which the polluter pays principle can be put into concrete form. Industry representatives have told me that they too agree with the principle and the insurance industry has said that it can make it work, so long as it is introduced gradually and they have time to cost it properly. So why does this House, and my group too, find itself so very divided over an issue about which everyone seems to agree? It seems that the principle is fine so long as it is never turned into practice. In this instance I regard myself as a pragmatist, I want to ensure that the legislation is workable and does not impose crippling burdens on industry or on agricultural producers. That is one reason why I oppose the introduction of joint and several liability. If there is a danger to the environment, then someone has to pay and when the polluters can be clearly identified, then they should be first in line. All organisations should, above all, be very conscious of the need to take measures to prevent damage in the first place. I believe the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has not done this House justice. It has taken positions which are not only minimalist but actually retrograde, and which weaken the Commission's proposals. This House must make changes. I do not agree with altering the legal base. We should extend the definition of environmental damage to safeguard special habitats and species. We should take the chance to put pressure on Member States that have failed to ratify the international marine conventions. We should give citizens the right to go to court directly to prevent environmental damage or to seek redress. None of this is very radical. We have all expressed concern about the damage done to our environment by human activity. This measure is one way in which we can start to do something practical to protect it and to put all our fine words into real effect."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 unknown; Liberal Democrat Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; PETI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause from the left)"1 "Davies (ELDR )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph