Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-07-Speech-4-066"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-09-07"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000907.2.4-066"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-09-07-Speech-4-0672
lpv:speaker	lp:Armonia Bordes2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees and delegations for relations with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Lutte ouvrière (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"This report has some positive aspects, in particular the restatement of the binding nature of the proposed measures to protect water quality. But by granting deadlines, in particular a 20-year time-limit for banning discharges of hazardous substances, the report makes a nonsense of its own resolution. That time-limit is equivalent to authorising undertakings to discharge their toxic substances for another 20 years. Moreover, it is not made sufficiently clear that it is up to polluting undertakings to pay for any damage they have caused. As for charging for water, the only decision that would be in the interests of the public would be a ban on all private profit-making from the supply and distribution of water, but that is not even mentioned in this report, which, in pillorying Ireland for its practice of publicly financing water provision, is instead at pains to stress the commercial nature of this vital substance. That is why we abstained."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph