Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-16-Speech-1-104"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-06-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Environmental quality standards in the field of water policy (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080616.20.1-104"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-06-16-Speech-1-1052
lpv:speaker	lp:Jens Holm2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EUL/NGL (2006-09-27--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway and to the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2006-10-10--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2006-10-12--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; INTA (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Temporary Committee on Climate Change (2007-05-10--2009-02-04)3 substitute; CONT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Vänsterpartiet (2006-09-27--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"The intention of this directive was to lay down environmental quality standards for a number of hazardous chemicals and thereby protect watercourses from chemicals and other harmful substances. Unfortunately the lobbyists have been adept at influencing both the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. Now that this matter has come up for second reading, regrettably the good intentions have been thoroughly watered down. One example of this is that only 11 of the 29 chemicals over which we wanted Parliament to have monitoring powers are now classified as hazardous substances. There will be no concrete requirement for Member States to meet reduction targets. Nevertheless this compromise is better than what the Commission had originally proposed. Hence we in the GUE/NGL Group support it, but you may be sure that we shall be following the matter closely and seeking to ensure that watercourses do get better protection in future. When the time for a review comes, we hope that there will be some further tightening up. I have a question for Commissioner Dimas, who is here this evening: how would you feel if individual Member States wanted to go further and adopt more extensive measures than are stipulated in this Directive? If individual Member States wanted to classify more substances than those listed under this compromise, would you let them go ahead and thus adopt more stringent legislation?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph