Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-20-Speech-1-078"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031020.5.1-078"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Commission’s proposal contains some good features in the form of more stringent requirements concerning bacteria content, with a maximum of 500 Escherichia coli per 100 ml and 200 intestinal enterococci per 100 ml. The sampling frequency recommended by the Commission is not, however, sufficient and undercuts the current arrangements in Denmark. The bathing season is set at three months in Denmark. The Commission’s proposal would mean the number of samples we take each season falling from ten to two. In the quest for clean bathing water, it would clearly entail a reduction in safety.
It is, however, with pleasure that I am able to observe that quite a few of the amendments tabled by the liberal rapporteur, Mr Maaten, disappeared in the course of discussion by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Mr Maaten’s jolly proposal concerning definitions of bathers and bathing water and a colourful range of star-spangled flags on the beach has fortunately disappeared. It saves Parliament from becoming still more of a laughing stock in the eyes of the public.
The rapporteur’s report gave rise to 124 supplementary amendments by fellow MEPs in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, but the many amendments to Mr Maaten’s proposal also show how a political group can waste a huge amount of MEPs’ time. I am unable to support the report’s proposal to include other leisure activities in the definition of the framework for the bathing water directive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples