Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-16-Speech-1-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080616.20.1-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should also like to thank Mrs Laperrouze for her friendly, obliging cooperation. It did prove possible to retain a vestige of the positive outcome of first reading in spite of everything but, all the same, what we have here today is a poor show. Most of what had been achieved has been lost following lobbying by the agrochemical industry and the less efficient among the public regulatory authorities. What we are discussing today are the sad remains.
Our overarching aim is to progressively improve water quality in European rivers and lakes. Copious pesticide use in agriculture and toxic industrial discharges must be curbed, and tough requirements must be enforced regarding the quantity of the priority substances or priority hazardous substances permitted in water. The weakness of the present report is that there is no real political will to scrutinise any more substances. It has already become clear that the present system, under which substances on the list are to be examined and new ones added, at best works too slowly. If the precautionary principle were to hold force, a number of other substances would have to be examined, but we are letting that possibility slip through our fingers.
In addition, it is not clear what it takes for a substance to be declared so hazardous that it has to be banned completely. We have ended up with a number of substances that are in all likelihood extremely hazardous, yet the Commission balks at finally banning them. This is unacceptable: if a substance is hazardous, it is hazardous. We must monitor whether the Commission gets going with the examination of these substances or whether it just continues to put off taking a position on the grounds that it does not have enough data. If that is the case, it should go and get the data.
There are some improvements. For example, countries must now chart sources of pollution and also include concentrations in sediment and biota. In addition, the Commission is not permitted to wait until as late as 2025, as it had wished, to review the situation. It must produce such a review in 2018.
Yes, we shall be voting in favour of this report. We are thankful for small mercies following a downturn of the kind seen after first reading."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples