Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-07-Speech-5-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000707.3.5-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is both an incredibly complicated and, at the same time, incredibly important area. It is a logical continuation of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Council of Ministers’ summit in Tampere. It is a classic area requiring cooperation. When we look at the Danish text, as well as at Mr Di Lello Finuoli’s report and Mrs Schörling’s opinion, which are both excellent, we see, however, that it is an extremely complicated area. We must have good coordination between the assistance agreement, which has recently been debated here in the Chamber, and the rules concerning money laundering. I am not completely certain that the instrument is ready in every respect, but I am pleased that the attempt is being made to avoid duplicating the work of the Council of Europe.
We see that there are really three parts to the Danish initiative, plus the demand for ratification of the Council of Europe’s Convention. It is important to have regulations in criminal law so that we can prevent environmental crime. I personally believe that confiscation rules are more important than the demand for strict penalties and severe fines. Experience shows that a very great deal can, in fact, be achieved by means of strict confiscation rules. We have the old saw, ‘Crime must not pay’. As Mrs Schörling also pointed out, we must have close cooperation, including when it comes to the rules relating to environmental liability which we are to draw up and which are mentioned in Article 2 (a).
I am pleased that, in the opinion she has drafted, Mrs Schörling also takes up the question of animals, which does not surprise me at all. I think that we in this Chamber should say loudly and clearly that this must be an instrument with which we tackle the disgraceful ways in which animals are transported. We are quite surprised that the Commission, for example, has not set to and wanted to apply the existing rules. Why is the Commission so passive – much more passive than in many other areas – when it comes to being the Guardian of the Treaties on the issue of protecting animals in transit?
Amendments 16 and 19 introduce interesting matters which I doubt would be a part of many other countries’ criminal legislation. They concern misleading information provided by local or national authorities, at the same time as the latter, in their turn, have been misled. I think this is something we should study in the future. I see this as a clear illustration of the current questions in Baia Mare and of the investigation which is under way there concerning who is really liable. Who has misled whom? These are very complicated, very interesting and very important questions.
I am also pleased that specific vessels have been cited and that there is also a readiness to apply measures outside the territory of the EU. We should nonetheless be aware that, if we do this, we must also define what constitutes the type of serious environmental crime we are talking about combating."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples