Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-07-Speech-5-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000707.3.5-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as draftsperson of the opinion prepared by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy on the basis of the Hughes procedure, I am able to say on behalf of the whole Committee that we welcome the Danish initiative which, together with our amendments, was adopted unanimously in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy.
We consider that this initiative will be a useful instrument for combating those environmental crimes and their ever more common cross-border consequences which are, of course, a direct threat to the environment and also, therefore, to human beings, animals and plant life.
Serious environmental crimes are a common problem for the Member States because their effects are not confined to individual countries. Therefore, we also ought to be able to take common measures to protect the environment as effectively as possible using the provisions of criminal law. I would point out that this Framework Decision is to be made unanimously in the Council, and it has been agreed that it will be binding upon the Member States. At the same time, it should be remembered that it is the Member States which decide
the results are to be achieved, that is to say which method is to be applied and which course of action adopted.
How is this to happen? Perhaps, for example, through efficient investigations promptly carried out, by sharing the information obtained in this way and by ensuring that these investigations are carried out by staff knowledgeable about the environment. That is extremely important. By means of administrative cooperation between the Member States, it is also possible to obtain such information as can be of use in enabling us to combat environmental crime.
I would also, however, point out something which we also emphasised in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, namely that we must also go in for preventive measures, that is to say measures to be taken before environmental damage has been caused and environmental crimes committed. It is therefore also important for legislation to deal with environmental liability, that is to say the issue of who is liable, and for there to be effective legislation of this kind in the various Member States. More knowledge, pure and simple, about the environment and details of relevant techniques are also, of course, required, as well as information on how to detect environmental crime, on the consequences of this and on the penalties that can be imposed. It is important to try to cooperate as much as possible in this area.
Serious environmental crime is defined in this Framework Decision as ‘acts or omissions which, under aggravating circumstances and in breach of the legislation, result in substantial damage to the environment’. It is, of course, open to discussion how the definition in terms of the words ‘serious environmental crime’ and ‘substantial damage’ is to be interpreted, but that is no doubt as far as the definition goes, even if it is not recognisable in legislation outside the Member States.
We have looked at this definition of serious environmental crime in the amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Because the definition is so vague, we consider it important to obtain as wide an area of application as possible in the proposed Framework Decision. Moreover, combating serious environmental crime cannot only apply to private companies but must also apply to administrative crime, that is to say cases where the administrative regimes in the various countries, or in fact the governments, have brought about serious environmental damage either through negligence or irresponsibility. We have tried to include such circumstances by means of Amendment 16.
Another important aspect is what is regarded as ‘aggravating circumstances’ if the organisation which has caused serious environmental damage has been inadequately insured and has been so, too, in connection with the risks entailed in the particular business. What is at stake here is the issue of liability and the polluter pays principle, as well as the principle that the burden, consequences and risks should not be imposed upon others. This may be found in Amendment 25.
Finally, I just want to say that we are on the way to taking joint action to protect the environment. This Framework Decision is
step, like the Council of Europe’s Convention on the Protection of the Environment through criminal law. The Framework Decision also states that this convention must be ratified as quickly as possible because it is significantly more detailed. These steps are absolutely necessary, I believe, to deter environmental crooks and prevent irresponsible actions which cause serious environmental damage. I am in favour of the Framework Decision and of the amendments which have been tabled."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples