Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-09-Speech-1-098"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050509.15.1-098"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, the Commission can accept a range of amendments concerning the provision of information to the general public, both at bathing sites and over the Internet. The Commission is also very happy to accept the idea of developing common symbols and signs to be displayed at bathing sites. However, it is necessary to be clear as to what exactly the signs and symbols are supposed to indicate.
Several amendments seek to reintroduce provisions concerning emergency plans. The Commission considers that, in this respect, the common position is an improvement on its original proposal. As the text already deals with pollution resulting from unusual or exceptional events, it is not appropriate to introduce detailed provisions on emergency planning in relation to bathing.
As to the issue of classification, the Commission wishes to maintain the ‘sufficient’ category with the aim of reaching an agreement that would allow the European Union to adopt a better framework for bathing waters than the present one. The Commission cannot accept the deletion of this category. However, the Commission welcomes the spirit of compromise behind Amendments 36 and 55. Amendment 36 provides that this classification category would exist only for eight years after the entry into force of this directive. As this would only take us to 2013, which is before the date on which the common position proposes that the quality standards would come into effect, the Commission does not regard this amendment as realistic.
With regard to Amendment 55, the Commission considers that increasing the severity of the quality standards associated with the ‘sufficient’ classification category would represent a potentially fruitful option in which to pursue a compromise. Therefore, while the quality standards for the sufficient category are far too stringent, the Commission could accept the principle of the amendment.
With regard to the distinction between coastal waters and fresh waters, the Commission cannot accept the amendments that remove this distinction, nor those amendments directed at bringing forward the dates when the new quality standards become effective. Finally, the Commission notes the attention Parliament attaches to the issue of dealing with other recreational uses of waters such as surfing and sailing. The Commission does not believe that it is feasible to extend the scope of the directive to include these issues today. However, the direction suggested by Amendment 35, whereby the Commission commits to conducting a study on this issue and reporting by 2018, is acceptable.
In conclusion, the Commission can accept ten amendments in their entirety, and three amendments in part or in principle. However, 21 amendments are unacceptable to the Commission. I shall give a complete list of the Commission’s position on the amendments to Parliament’s secretariat. The European Union ensures minimum standards. Member States can go further and faster, and competition between tourist locations will push things in this direction.
My final remark: the Member States are responsible for designating bathing sites. The Walloon case to which Mrs Ries referred involved a site identified by Belgium as a bathing site. That is why we and the Court insisted on the site respecting the 1976 Directive."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples