Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-15-Speech-1-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031215.9.1-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, we in the British Conservative Group have a strong commitment to protecting our environment and this is an important directive which is capable of doing good both for the environment and for business. However, like many pieces of legislation it could be many years before we see the full impact of it. It is important, therefore, to take the longer view. On the one hand, unfettered commercial activity, as we all know, can destroy the environment. On the other hand, over-regulation closes down commercial life at a stroke. It is precisely this commercial life which we all depend on, on which our culture and our society is based. The second reading position is an excellent starting point and one which we support. However, there are very important points which we need to bear in mind. The first is the absolute necessity to allow the permit and state-of-the-art defences to remain. It would be terrible to see companies in 20 years' time facing prosecutions for things which they did now, which are later judged to have been wrong.
I am very concerned also about the workability of the compulsory financial security, whether it is in the form of insurance, bonds or other forms of security. We know perfectly well that the insurance industries are not yet able to offer schemes which would meet the needs of this Parliament or the Commission in bringing forward this legislation. We also know that it would lead to a disproportionate burden on small businesses. Do we wish to be responsible for making small businesses go under because we are putting this compulsory liability on them? Indeed, mention has already been made of the taxpayer having to bear the burden, but if we made this compulsory, it would be Member State taxpayers who eventually would have to stand in place to guarantee this. It is much better to leave this on one side for now and see how the directive begins to work and come back to this in the future.
Nor can we be certain that pollution will respect the boundaries of the EU, however large the EU becomes. It is important, therefore, certainly with nuclear matters and pollution at sea, that we use those models to carry on with our international obligations and work with our other partners around the world.
Too often the best is the enemy of the good with legislation. We need to be moderate in what we try to achieve today. If we keep with what we are proposing in the common position, this piece of legislation can do some real good and should be welcomed and we welcome it today and we wish to see the directive in place."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Twinn (PPE-DE )."1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples