Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030513.2.2-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in January 2002, the Commission finally reached, with this proposal for a directive, the end of a process which had lasted for ten years. In 1993, in fact, there was already a Green Paper on environmental liability. The European Parliament, via the ENVI, subsequently urged the Commission, on several occasions, to take rapid action on this subject. We have waited, therefore, a very long time for the day when there would be a sound proposal on the table.
What, then, does this Commission proposal achieve? Obviously it does not live up to its stated ambitions. I believe that the Commission’s original ambitions were on a grand scale, but that the final product is disappointing. I also believe that we should draw attention to the factors which are the cause of this disappointment.
The first of these factors is that the definition of the environment is too restricted. In the case of biodiversity, for example, a proportion estimated to be equivalent to only 20% of biodiversity would be protected, and only 13% of European territory would be covered.
The second factor is the scope of the proposals. Annex I lists the various economic activities which are covered by the principle of liability without fault. This list of activities is very restrictive. In particular, it excludes anything concerning nuclear activities or the transporting of hydrocarbons, without any real justification. Reference is made to international conventions, which certainly exist but which do not cover the remedying of environmental damage. I would remind the House of what was said here yesterday by one of our PPE members, Mr Bébéar, when he complained – quite rightly – about the low level of compensation envisaged by the IOPCF for the victims of the
accident. We must, therefore, be consistent, and adopt a very firm amendment requiring that, in the case of accidents of this type, what is not covered by the international convention should be covered by our directive. However, the Commission’s proposal does not do this.
The third factor which has to be taken into consideration is the exemptions laid down on the basis of the existence of an operating permit or the existence of scientific knowledge which, at the time of the accident, would not have been sufficiently relevant to justify the liability of the economic activity in question. For example, in the case of GMOs or of pesticides which are, amongst other things, endocrine disrupters, if one follows this principle then practically all related activities would escape the application of the directive. This is not acceptable.
I shall conclude, Mr President, by saying that our group supports a series of amendments which are in line with the proposals of Mr Papayannakis to the ENVI, and which have been taken up by Mrs Gebhardt. I believe that these important changes are essential in order to give this directive real substance."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples