Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-15-Speech-1-118"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031215.9.1-118"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like firstly, as other Members have done, to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Manders, and the rapporteur for my group, Mrs Niebler, who has not just been able to reach agreements with Mr Manders, but also to seek consensus within the group and also to inform us punctually of what was happening with this proposed Directive.
As has rightly been said, we are dealing with a really important Directive. We are all aware of the importance of environmental protection and the fact that this Directive reflects the ‘polluter pays’ principle. However, we must also be aware that polluters are often companies, and we must ensure their survival within our economy. I therefore believe that there are two important principles: the first, which Mr Gargani has mentioned, is not to promote the relocation of our companies towards other markets, and the second is to find the greatest possible degree of harmonisation within the European Union.
I believe that all the countries of the Union must comply with this Directive, and it must oblige the Member States equally: we must not allow each Member State to apply it differently. The scope must be as broad as possible, as laid down in the common position, and, with regard to the possible exceptions for operators with regard to compliance with any previous legislation, I believe it is true that Amendments Nos 9 and 16 are excessive, as has been said here, and would allow some companies to escape their duty to pay. But it is true that we must seek some mechanism according to which the fact that companies comply with the legislation in force is considered a mitigating factor.
With regard to the reparation measures, we must allow the Member States to be able to cover the damage created, as reparation measures, as laid down in Amendments Nos 10, 11 and 12 approved by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market.
Finally, with regard to the time period during which a company can be held responsible, I believe that the 30 years laid down in the common position is an excessive period. The environmental contingency it would represent for companies seems to me to be excessive, and I support Mrs Thyssen’s amendment, which would reduce this time period to 10 years: it makes much more sense to reduce the time period during which companies must be held responsible for the environmental damage caused."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples