Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-15-Speech-1-120"

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	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031215.9.1-120"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-12-15-Speech-1-1212
lpv:speaker	lp:Alexander de Roo2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; GroenLinks (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 vice-chair; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, environmental liability is a sensitive topic. This is also evident from the battle between the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. The Council has struck a feeble compromise, which just may take effect after the review in a few years’ time. At the moment, it is feeble at any rate, and will not do much to help improve the situation of the environment. Where biodiversity is concerned, we are lagging even behind the United States in terms of legislation. It is very important to us, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, to extend the scope of this directive. It has been said before: firstly, nuclear energy, secondly, pollution by sea-going ships and thirdly, damage caused by GM crops. Commissioner Bolkestein, you have the reputation of speaking in no uncertain terms and of not pulling your punches, but I have to say that your hiding behind the coexistence rule is, of course, nonsense. What is at issue here is that the Commission is frightened of pressure from the United States, and it should simply admit this. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy was in favour of extending the directive by these three supplements; the Liberal rapporteur, regrettably, was not. Another important point is compulsory insurance. That is essential. Unfortunately, the Christian Democrats are opposed to this, and so is the Liberal rapporteur. The crucial question is: who should foot the bill for environmental damage? In its draft, the Commission wanted to pass the buck to the governments, and it is fortunate that these, in the common position, declined to do so. The polluter pays, and so he should. It is the businesses, not the governments, that cause pollution. I have to get something off my chest. The rapporteur has made rather a hash of things. He has taken only right-wing views into consideration, as illustrated by the amendments relating to good agricultural practice. He is responsible for Parliament’s lack of power, and industry will be grateful to him."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph