Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-30-Speech-3-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010530.8.3-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, when I read the Commission proposal, at first I said: ‘Splendid!’ That was when I read the communication. Then I looked at the articles and found that something had happened between communication and articles. There is always something missing. If you look at it closely, you can see precisely what it is. In the communication, the strategic objectives – and the related measures – are set out quite clearly. In the articles there are only vague allusions. Sometimes something has been lost altogether, in the case of noise, for example, which in my opinion is a key environmental factor for human health.
The communication describes the types of pollution and lists the measures. Then you come to the articles; in Article 2 you still find the objective of reducing pollution, especially long-term pollution, from noise. Then when you come to the measures concerning health in Article 6, however hard you look, Commissioner, I can find not one specific measure about noise.
I therefore think it is right that we should now bring the things that you listed quite rightly and very well at the beginning of the communication back into the articles, thereby making them binding for the Commission, Parliament and the Council. Either list of examples can be used. If we are to set about using an instrument of this kind, we need a degree of strategic orientation. In connection with water, for example, we read: “phasing out the discharge of hazardous substances”. I don’t think there is even one person in the European Union who says he wants more hazardous substances to be discharged into water. The questions of when such a thing happens, however, and what hazardous substances are, need to be rather more closely defined! There is nothing about that at all.
The next bullet point is “Revising the bathing water directive”. What does “revising” mean? Does it mean raising the standards? Does it mean the same standards as in the drinking water directive, or does it mean protecting human health? So we need greater clarity here. Now a word to the PPE-DE: I admit we have a few motions here about whose content we can discuss. We must do that, but we must do it in the second reading because that is when things get polished up. I really must ask you at the first reading to give us a mandate to negotiate and back the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples