Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-09-Speech-1-086"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-05-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Quality of bathing water2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050509.15.1-086"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-05-09-Speech-1-0872
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; TRAN (2004-09-15--2007-01-14)3 member; LIBE (2004-09-14--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-11-18--2006-12-12)3 vice-chair; ENVI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 treasurer; IND/DEM (2004-07-26--2007-02-12)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; ChristenUnie - Staatkundig Gereformeerde Parti (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, since we discussed subsidiarity at first reading, I will not elaborate on it now. I had hoped that the revision of the Bathing Water Directive would have brought us closer to cleaner bathing water, as indeed, the Commission’s original proposal gave us ample opportunity of bringing this about. That is why this House decided to make relatively few changes at first reading. The Council cannot, though, be said to have taken a positive line when drawing up the common position, which cannot, I think be regarded as entirely ‘common’. There is little evidence of Parliament’s position at first reading. In particular, I cannot commend the Council for the way it has lowered its sights. All kinds of cosmetic changes have been made in order to jazz up the proposal, including the introduction of a new category of ‘sufficient’ bathing water, but that cannot take away the impression that there was little enthusiasm in the Council for tightening up standards. In addition, the distinction drawn by the Council between salt and fresh water is dictated by the wish to reach a compromise within the Council. However, the arguments raised have not convinced me of the scientific basis which is reported to exist. I will therefore support the amendments that intend to reverse this. Similarly, I can endorse the deletion of the category ‘sufficient’. I could, perhaps, accept as a compromise Amendment 36, tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. I also welcome the re-inclusion of the table with parameters – Amendment 29 – which is worth supporting. While we are on the subject, I would like to ask the Council how it feels about the way in which the old 1976 Bathing Water Directive has been implemented. Looking at the situation in the EU in 2003 – which is the last available year – then we see that some 95% of the bathing waters meet the compulsory standards and approximately 80% meet the guiding values. So without the need for any additional work, 80% of the bathing water already meets the new standards proposed by the Commission. So why is the Council so opposed to better protection for bathers? We all know that the present directive no longer meets present-day requirements, but I do think that the new directive should raise the bar a little higher. That is, in the interest of the bathers, the only right course. Finally, I should like to wish the rapporteur much strength. He has to my mind done an excellent job so far. Let us hope that the Council realises this and that conciliation can be avoided."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph