Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-15-Speech-1-108"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031215.9.1-108"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, not only for our own sake, but also for the sake of future generations, we need to have proper regard for the environment, for an undamaged environment is one of the most valuable of the goods that are entrusted to us. It is for that reason that we have before us a directive that makes a priority of caring for the environment and preventing damage to it. Achieving that objective requires that we be consistent in applying the ‘polluter pays’ principle, which states that those who cause damage to the environment or bear responsibility for it, must pay for the damage to be dealt with, and that the burden of proof lies with them. Only in this way can we put a stop to negligence and the evasion of responsibility at the expense of society as a whole.
The names of two ships, the
and the
are synonymous with catastrophes that disproportionately burdened public funds and cost many people their jobs and livelihoods. Even minor environmental disasters can bring a community to the brink of ruin, and, although we will never be able to completely exclude the possibility of them, unremitting liability for environmental damage will deter those who might be the cause of them. My group takes the view that there is no room for exceptions to be made, and that is why we want this directive to fully cover sectors with grave consequences for the environment, such as the nuclear power industry or genetically modified organisms. Amendments to this effect are before the House.
Let me conclude by adding something on the subject of mandatory insurance, which is meeting with such fierce resistance, particularly from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. In Germany, if you buy a house or own a flat, you have to take out insurance against fire and the forces of nature, even though, in cases of doubt, it is only you who will be out in the cold. No doubt the situation is similar elsewhere. It is, then, quite incomprehensible that the operators of environmentally hazardous plant or those who use dangerous substances should not have to insure against liability. Must it always be the taxpayer, by way of the public purse, who is asked to pay up when things get really expensive? And are we in this European Parliament really going to introduce less protection, less of the ‘polluter pays’ principle, into this area, than the Council is willing to permit?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples