Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-15-Speech-1-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031215.9.1-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we feel that the proposal for a directive that we are debating this evening with regard to the prevention and the remedying of environmental damage is very important because it develops a system of liabilities based on the polluter pays principle for a whole range of damage likely to have been caused by economic activities to the natural heritage. This heritage is our shared asset and, in order to protect it, we must be extremely vigilant. We must not turn a blind eye to the damage, which sometimes is in danger of going unnoticed because it does not directly affect private property.
This is why, at this second reading, we do not agree in particular with Amendment No 9 of the European Parliament, which excludes from the scope of the directive activities that have an administrative permit or those not considered to be dangerous according to the state of knowledge at the time when the damage occurred. Those who take the risk must also assume it, and this is why we do not agree with Amendment No 39 either, which seeks to supplement Amendment No 9 to exempt GMOs in advance or to lessen the liability of those who work with them. On the other hand, we support Amendment No 22, which, in contrast with earlier ones, moves towards better protection since it reintroduces the idea of a compulsory financial guarantee to be gradually implemented. Indeed, as regards this point, we cannot be satisfied with the vague wording of the current text."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples