Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-15-Speech-1-110"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-12-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Environmental liability2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031215.9.1-110"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-12-15-Speech-1-1112
lpv:speaker	lp:Mihail Papayannakis2
lpv:spokenAs	chair; Delegation to the EU-Hungary Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-06--2004-04-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-06--2004-04-30)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Synaspismos tis Aristeras kai tis Proodou (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; PETI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the directive we are debating is very important; perhaps it is directive of the parliamentary term. Because we are not just saying 'the polluter pays' and, consequently, whoever has to pay can pollute; we are saying that the polluter must pay the cost of restoring the damage which he has caused. Consequently, the directive may respond to our citizens' huge hopes for public health and the environment and we must not water it down. Various views were expressed during the debate. We have proven that we can find compromise solutions such as, for example, the gradual introduction of compulsory insurance so that the cost of the damage is never passed on to the taxpayer and the polluter can cover the damage under his insurance, or the compromise whereby the Member States must undertake to restore the damage if the polluter cannot or if the person responsible cannot be found. We have problems, however, to which it would appear that we cannot find compromise solutions: how can we talk of agricultural and forestry practices which somehow exonerate the use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and weedkillers when we all know – from the Union's own statistics – the damage which they can cause to biodiversity, the ground and water? How can we somehow issue blank licences to polluters, accepting the complete exemption of those who hold licences or respect the current state of the art? We have to find ways here too and the relevant compromise proposals exist. If, however, we do not do something in this direction, industry will never be persuaded to abandon polluting processes. So things are still serious and I would say that we should also debate the other issues on which I heard the Commissioner being very negative. We cannot have a directive that says nothing about genetically modified organisms and the damage which their free use may cause or which makes no reference to the damage caused by shipping or the use of nuclear energy. Compromise amendments have been proposed which I find to be exceptionally moderate and realistic and I do not understand how citing international conventions, especially conventions which not all the Member States of the European Union have signed, can be the answer to this question. So greater willingness needs to be demonstrated by both the Commission and by us, ladies and gentlemen, so that this legislation really is legislation of the parliamentary term. I should also like to say something because certain members spoke of 'teratogenesis'. Frankenstein, with his technology, produced a monster ever greater than himself. Let us not therefore put ourselves in the ridiculous position of producing a baby monster which is far inferior to our powers."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"the"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph