Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-032"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-05-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Environmental liability2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030513.2.2-032"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-05-13-Speech-2-0332
lpv:speaker	lp:Ria Oomen-ruijten2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Christen Democratisch Appèl (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the tightening up of the environmental liability legislation that we are discussing today is a very important subject. It is necessary if we are to repair and tackle environmental damage, but we also need it as a big stick to wield against damage occurring in future. The report before us seems to me to be a very workable compromise that should win a majority of votes. The rapporteur has, and I am very grateful to him for this, taken back one or two things like his tree fund, and the shadow rapporteurs Angelika Niebler and Markus Ferber have been working with the rapporteur to do all they can to achieve a workable compromise. That does not mean that I am completely happy with what we have before us. I have, however, promised Mrs Niebler that our group would support her because I want to give the proposal the benefit of the doubt. Why am I not happy? I wonder whether excluding certain sectors – the oil industry, the nuclear industry – is sufficiently well covered by the international agreements that are in place. I doubt it somehow. Secondly – and this is actually contradictory – we will be creating a new way of bringing the GMOs that are permitted back under this legislation. I have my doubts about this. Then there is the definition of habitat. What will it cost when two wild hamsters are removed when an industrial park is built; who can pay for that? I still have problems with the way in which habitat is defined. Thirdly, I believe that there is too little commitment regarding insurance. I would have preferred insurance to be made compulsory, because this would be relevant to small- and medium-sized enterprises in particular. This will now be reviewed after five years. Whether that is enough for it to work, I do not know."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph