Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-15-Speech-1-122"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031215.9.1-122"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a convinced supporter of the European model of the environmentally-responsible market economy, which makes it clear that the liberalised market is not the irresponsible thing it is often suspected of being, but has social and environmental responsibilities and hence a responsibility to future generations. It follows that there is no doubt that a responsible European economic and environmental policy must, together with the approval procedure, ensure that serious damage to the environment can be prevented, and that any damage caused can be made good, with the costs being borne primarily by the persons or bodies that caused the damage. As yet, not all the Member States apply the polluter pays principle, and so European regulations are needed to prevent the incidence of distortions of competition in the market.
It is in relation to this that my colleague Mrs Flemming and I support the re-submission of two important amendments calling for nuclear damage to be included within the scope of the directive. I ask to support Amendments Nos 41 and 42, since this directive is meant to cover activities that actually are dangerous. I regard the decision by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to exclude nuclear power stations from the scope of the environmental liability directive as incomprehensible, as it cover all the alternative forms of energy; whoever is responsible for damage done to the environment by wind power, biomass, biogas and solar energy installations, must be held liable. Why not in the case of damage done by nuclear power? In Amendments Nos 41 and 42, then, we are asking for this to be included.
I also want to put the case for greater legal certainty, which is why we are in favour of the period of liability taking the form envisaged in Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, and of legal certainty being created by approved plant being excluded
from liability. The issue of how costs are to be shared between several different polluters must be clarified. I am very grateful to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the sensible and moderate approach that it has taken. This is a legal directive rather than an environmental one. Above all else, I am grateful to our rapporteurs, Mr Manders and Mrs Niebler, for the work they have done."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples