Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-20-Speech-1-082"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031020.5.1-082"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I should like to make some comments on the amendments tabled.
The Commission is aware of the need to adapt legislation to technical and scientific progress and welcomes Amendments Nos 28, 29 and 30 on the revision and adaptation of the directive. In this context, the Commission has just launched a call for proposals under the Sixth Framework Programme calling for projects on virus detection techniques in bathing waters.
In conclusion, the Commission can accept, to a greater or to a lesser degree, 32 amendments of the 76 amendments tabled. I therefore look forward to the results of tomorrow's vote.
I should like to conclude by expressing my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Maaten.
First of all, I thank Members for their comments, which I read as support for the basic philosophy and structure of the proposal. Actually, both Parliament and Council also confirmed their support in negotiating the Sixth Environmental Action Programme in 2002. I also thank Members for not bringing into question the health standards which the Commission has proposed.
The Commission cannot accept narrowing the scope of the directive via Amendments Nos 5 or 76. What counts is the importance of a bathing site for a local community. People in northern or non-tourist regions also have the right to bathe in safety. The Commission therefore disapproves of limiting the scope for bathers to one hundred per day and restricting the scope for watersports to one hundred metres.
Although the Commission appreciates that many MEPs have attempted to improve the integration of the water framework and bathing water directives, the Commission cannot agree with all amendments concerned. Amendments Nos 3, 4, 16, 21 and 33 are unacceptable because they create redundancy between the two directives. Good chemical status is already covered by the water framework directive and we do not have to duplicate that. In some cases, waters can be of excellent quality for bathing without having a good ecological status.
Nevertheless, the Commission accepts in principle Amendment No 32, which extends the bathing water profile by adding elements such as hydrological characteristics in relation to the water framework directive. However, it must be kept in mind that the scales of both directives are very different. The water framework directive applies to river basins, whereas the bathing water directive has a very local scope.
The Commission believes that the basis of good bathing water management is found within a well documented and updated bathing water profile. The Commission cannot, therefore, accept amendments like 43 and 44, which reduce the knowledge and control of bathing waters.
The Commission welcomes Amendments Nos 8, 11, 14, 17, 18, 20, 34, 35 and 36 concerning bathing water management, public participation and information to the public. However, the Commission would prefer to leave to subsidiarity the choice of symbols and logos depicting bathing water quality and therefore does not want to take on board Amendments Nos 21 and 27.
On Amendment No 19, I would like to say the following: the Commission is open to a certain amount of flexibility on bathing waters which suffer from predictable and manageable short-term contamination. However, flexibility should not undermine the credibility of the directive. Bathing waters which suffer from occasional and short-term events should be identified as such to the public. It is also important for the evaluation of EU bathing sites that no bathing water remains in conformity if the pollution is neither properly identified or mastered. As regards Amendment No 19, the Commission rejects the levels proposed by paragraph 2, the unlimited exclusion of samples in paragraph 3(a) and the almost unconditional conformity as proposed in paragraph 5.
I regret that some amendments aim to increase the risks people will face when bathing. Amendments Nos 62 and 66 both increase the risks of illness from 5% to 9%."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples