Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030513.2.2-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, like all my group I essentially welcome this proposal and the opportunity to speak on its behalf. As my friend Mr Lannoye said, it is, if not 'too little, too late', at any rate 'not very much and rather late'. But it is a step in the right direction and it is very important to establish the polluter pays principle. After all, most human activities have some impact on the environment. The issue is who tidies up afterwards – the person who causes it or somebody else? Like many members of this House I have received powerful representations from local authorities in my own constituency in Scotland, saying that if this directive is not carried local authorities and other public bodies will continue to have to deal, out of general tax revenues, with the problems which other people ought either to have prevented in the first place or be dealing with at present.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the polluter pays principle is only half the story. The fact of the matter is that those who pollute are engaged in economic activities producing goods or services which other people want to buy, presumably at the price at which they are offered. If the polluter does not pay, the problem is that the price is too low and consumers get a kind of a free lunch for which they then have to pay afterwards in their capacity as taxpayers. We must try to ensure, therefore, that we have a regime which is genuinely directed at those producers and activities which can take better precautions and adequately insure against liability so that the pressure of insurance premium liabilities and the cost of insurance premiums reward those who are most careful and push up prices for those who are least careful, thereby creating a virtuous circle.
With regard to that issue, I have had much doubt throughout the debates about the so-called state-of-the-art and permit defences, as there is a rationale which says that people should be able to work closely to the terms of, for example, a carefully designed permit and thereby guarantee themselves against liability.
On the whole though, I have come to the view expressed in Amendment No 104 that these matters should be treated as matters of litigation rather than matters of exemption, which is a reasonable compromise to reach, so we very strongly support the directive on condition that the relevant amendments are carried."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples