Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-20-Speech-1-068"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031020.5.1-068"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, as the Commissioner rightly stated, the current bathing water directive, dating back to 1976, is out of date. It is an inflexible directive based on obsolete data. However, we have to admit that this old directive is popular among Europeans, and indeed, the Commissioner was right to point out that it has been successful.
Finally, I should like to say that I am pleased with the compromise tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. It leads to better information to bathers and to other recreational users, better bathing water quality and also to deregulation and simpler legislation. Together with the improvements introduced by the Commission, I think that, on balance, we will arrive at improved legislation after all, on the understanding, of course, that Europe should legislate in this area.
It is clearly thanks to this old directive that much of the bathing water that was polluted not so long ago is now much cleaner. The proposal for revision, submitted by the Commission, is more flexible; it takes the inflexibility out of the existing directive and is, as such, an improvement. Of the nineteen parameters that were required for measurement in the old directive, only two remain, which is actually adequate to achieve the result that is required.
Since 1976, which is before the European Parliament was directly elected for the first time, our thinking about the environment, but also about issues such as subsidiarity, has, of course, fundamentally changed. We should, therefore, question whether the Union should, in fact, decide about what the quality of bathing water should be, whether Europe is better equipped than the Member States to do this, and whether there is a cross-border effect.
During the initial discussion in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I called these aspects into question and I have to say that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy answered 'yes' to all of those questions and affirmed that it is necessary to uphold such a directive and to improve it. My own group does not agree with this and has therefore tabled an amendment. In any case, this forces us to revisit this question of subsidiarity. Moreover, the committee itself was also somewhat confused. After all, in the directive, reference is made to the interests of tourism, but this also touches upon an internal market directive, while surely, as everyone knows, we are dealing here with a directive that should actually protect public health. However, the legal basis of the directive is the environment. In short, there is confusion all round. In actual fact, I am wondering whether it is not simply the case that we are keeping this directive, not because of a need, but simply because it is there.
The provision of information is crucial. There is no doubt in my mind too that here lies an essential European task, namely consumer protection and information which should be more easily accessible to bathers and users of bathing water. This can be done via the Internet, but I myself do not always have my laptop on the beach, so alternatives will need to be sought to make it obvious to bathers whether the water is clean or not. In this context, the system of smileys, for example, proposed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, strikes me as excellent. It should be up-to-date information, that is, not last year's information, but current, weekly information, because this would actually be of some use to bathers.
This information must be universally accessible. We could copy the example of the blue flag. Although this is not an EU initiative, it is nonetheless a well-known, popular and effective system. The drawback of the blue flag is that it is only introduced upon application and as such, cannot be found in bathing sites that have made the conscious decision not to apply for it. In addition, blue flags cost money.
The question is whether the quality of bathing water will improve purely on the basis of this improved information. Take the blue flag as an example, and see how it upsets bathing sites when they lose their blue flag. Would this not have a better effect than tightening the standards all the time? The proposed higher standards are, in my view, rather open to question anyway. Both the EU's own scientific committee and the World Health Organisation take the view that it is, in fact, impossible to establish scientific standards at international level, given the huge national differences. As a result, the higher standards are somewhat questionable.
Above all, I feel sorry for those governments who say that they are in favour of higher standards as long as they do not need to adhere to them. I understand that this is also an argument that is heard in different quarters in the Council. I think this is wrong. If they say that they want stricter standards, fine. But they should, of course, adhere to them too. Those stricter standards mean that, for example, in the United Kingdom, or in my own country, the Netherlands, 30% of the bathing water that is still considered good would then become 'bad'. What will the Commission do then? Will we be inundated with infringement proceedings? Will we be closing beaches? Are we not more likely to run the risk that such beaches will simply no longer be designated as bathing water, while people continue to swim in it?
The public health effect is therefore not achieved by prescribing higher standards. As far as this is concerned, we would have also preferred a cost-benefit analysis by the Commission. Where, for example, are all those sick tourists now on which these higher standards are based? According to scientists, these sick tourists should be around, but we have not seen any of them, not even a glimpse. The question is whether we have found a solution to a problem or whether we have created a problem for a solution that was there all along. It remains, of course, to be seen whether the new Member States can meet these old standards, never mind the new ones."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples