Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-15-Speech-1-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031215.9.1-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to add my voice to the unanimous acclaim of this directive as important and fundamental – maybe the most important directive achieved in the current legislature. Therefore, in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, I would like to stress the great balance achieved by Mr Manders in tabling appropriate amendments on a matter in which it is easy to see that exaggeration and underestimation are equally unhelpful.
The directive is complex and the – positive or negative – impact on the environment and the production system as a whole depends precisely on whether we strike the right balance. A directive which went beyond what is sensible would be in danger, in practical terms, of imposing heavy, unbearable obligations and costs on companies, possibly even driving them to relocate to other countries where these rules are not in force - and they would be doing so reluctantly - so that they can compete on the international market.
I, too, would stress the fact that the – not trivial, but important – ‘polluter pays’ principle, by which those who cause damage have to repair the damaged goods, is essential in a society which seeks to guarantee sufficient quality of life in the future too. It is also important to establish what is covered by the protection and, therefore, the ensuing liability: who is liable, for how long and to what extent. I believe that the Council’s common position is, in itself, a useful contribution in this sense, and we must support it. Thus, the principle of ‘discernment and balance’ – which I am repeatedly stressing and which has been a constant theme running through our debate – has led us to identify protected sites, define responsibilities and provide for exclusion from liability for those who have observed legal authorisations and rules.
I will confine myself to adding to the proposals of the Committee on Legal Affairs, together with Mrs Niebler – the shadow rapporteur who really has done an excellent job, as was clear from her speech yesterday too – an amendment which I feel to be particularly important, seeking to maker clearer the definition of operator, which, as the text is currently worded, does not make it possible to exclude banks and other financial institutions involved from liability for environmental damage caused by financial operators. As I understand it, the Commission does not agree on this point, which I would like to see explored in greater depth, so as to give greater consideration to whether it is sensible to produce a definition which does not cover all possible eventualities and which might, in actual fact, lead to a claim for damages being made to a financial intermediary. This would appear to be a valid request and I do, indeed, recommend that the House support the directive.
In conclusion, I believe that the Committee on Legal Affairs’ position has been linked to a common position; I hope that it will receive broad consensus in the Chamber in the vote."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples