Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-20-Speech-1-075"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-10-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Bathing water2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031020.5.1-075"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-10-20-Speech-1-0762
lpv:speaker	lp:Jean-Louis Bernié2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Chasse, Pêche, Nature, Traditions (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; CONT (2003-01-29--2004-07-19)3 member_of_the_bureau; EDD (2001-07-05--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, what constitutes good quality bathing water, and who should decide? These are the kinds of questions that arise from the Maaten report on the proposal for a directive concerning the quality of bathing water. Bearing in mind that neither public health nor tourism are Community competences, but remain the competence of the Member States, does Europe have to legislate on this matter and on what basis? In my opinion, the only argument in favour is that the public is better informed. But why make the microbiological thresholds more stringent while not providing for any threshold for chemical quality? It is also important to underline the difficulty of compiling an inventory of all sources of pollution, particularly in estuaries, which are located at the outlets of very large catchment areas drained by rivers. Why extend the directive to water sports and other recreational activities? Is the intention, in the long term, to ban surfing, windsurfing, kayaking and rowing because the water is deemed to be unsuitable for bathing? These activities are often enjoyed in places other than in bathing water and sometimes out of season. Why centralise the data on the Commission site, which seems to be costly and of limited benefit? Who takes their computer with them on holiday to find out whether they can bathe within microbiological safety limits? Local radio and the traditional display signs, which are easy to update, are, in my view, quite sufficient to inform the general public. Finally, the proposal to define a beach as a place usually visited by more than 100 bathers for at least 20 days during the bathing season is bordering on the ridiculous. Who is going to be counting? As usual, of course, no one is mentioning the cost of the measures or the substantial economic impact that a ban on bathing would have. It is not up to the directive to set out the cases in which bathing will be prohibited, as this decision should be the exclusive competence of the Member States. Even if it does make waves, we should respect subsidiarity, all the more so when the WHO has just published a practical guide to bathing water which could serve as a reference for the Member States. That is why we will be supporting the proposal to reject the directive."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph