Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030513.2.2-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, a legislative framework on environmental liability is necessary because it is right that the polluter should pay. However, the legislation must be well-balanced and take into consideration the expressed requirements of European industry.
The position adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, which is summarised in Mr Manders’ report – and I would like to thank Mr Manders for this
important document
is an acceptable compromise, although it does involve some sacrifices. Some of the amendments being tabled now are particularly dangerous, in that they would make it impossible for operators to quantify insurance coverage. The definition of environmental damage is central to the structure of the directive, as are the definitions of biodiversity and biodiversity damage.
As I see it, Amendments Nos 23, 84 and 98 are unacceptable: if an incident does not have harmful effects, then it is risk, not damage we should be talking about. Amendment No 95 is not acceptable either, in that it disregards the polluter pays principle. Indeed, the concept of liability is independent of the relationship of indefeasible right to use a site. The definition of GMO soil contamination is inappropriate in that it is part of a general definition which does not list all the sources of contamination. There needs to be a reference to proportional liability, not joint and several liability, which would create a system based on mistrust. Prevention can and must continue to be the highest priority in activities which might affect the environment.
Lastly, the financial guarantees: in order to allow the insurance
market to consolidate, we need to ensure maximum flexibility even after the first five years of application of the new legislation.
I therefore urge the Members to support the Committee on Legal Affairs’ compromise, which is a clear, powerful signal furthering environmental protection but does not penalise European industry."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples