Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-339"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.25.2-339"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, in the past few days and in fact, in general, during the discussion of this directive, the question of whether it is really necessary to prescribe standards for bathing water at European level has been put to me on a regular basis. Is this not a classic example of a matter that could be dealt with at Member State level? I am aware of the fact that Members belonging to the Dutch Social Democrats, who are sadly not here at the moment, even referred to it in a report as a disgraceful directive for swimming pool water. Well, it is not a directive for swimming pools, let alone a directive for bath water. It deals, of course, with coastal waters and lakes.
The question has been raised as to whether European action in this field adds any value. Parliament did not have any doubts about this when the House debated this very point at first reading. What is more important though, is that the Member States, and especially the Member States, felt that a directive was needed. If that is what they want, that is what they should get, but I do believe that it should be a serious directive rather than one that allows for more exceptions than anything else.
In any event, after more than 12 years of discussion, a compromise has been struck – albeit with difficulty – between the Council and Parliament, which I assume will be translated into legislation tomorrow. The new directive provides for cleaner bathing water along beaches and lakes in Europe, better information for bathers and less red tape for local authorities.
Across the whole of the European Union, more than 80% of bathing water locations already meet the stricter standards and in a number of Member States, even more than 90% of the swimming locations comply with them. At present, some 12% of bathers annually suffer from nausea, from stomach infections, rashes, tightness of the chest or eye or ear infections. The effect of the new directive is to tighten up health standards, as a result of which only 8% of bathers are expected to contract an illness.
From 2015, bathers will also be informed of the current bathing water quality at their bathing locations by means of symbols that will be identical across Europe. At the moment, bathers can only access the quality that pertains to the previous year with some difficulty and only on the Internet. What appeals to me is that before long, I will be able to see for myself what the quality of the water is on the spot, because I do not know about you, but I only take my laptop to the beach on very rare occasions. Instead of 19 parameters, Member States will only need to measure 2 parameters, and that is an example of how the red tape will be cut when water is measured.
For a long time, the European Parliament and the governments were at loggerheads over the question of how strict the standards should be and how high the associated costs for the Member States. We have reached a compromise that is satisfactory for all parties, and I think that in this respect, whilst the British Presidency deserves a compliment, it is the Commission – and you, Commissioner, in particular – who have been instrumental in bringing this compromise about. I should also like to thank many of the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation in this respect.
Bathing water will not only be cleaner, it will be
cleaner, the costs will be manageable and deregulation is underway. In conclusion, I am interested to hear what comments the Commission will have to make on the article that is soon to appear in the scientific magazine ‘Environmental Health Perspectives’, written by Mr Albrecht Wiedenmann and which carries the rather complex English title ‘Concentration responsive effects with no observed adverse effect levels’, abbreviated to NOAELS.
I cannot quite describe the term myself, but I am sure that you can. I am at any rate interested to see if the Commission will also use this study in its 2008 assessment report, because it contains quite a few terse comments about the directive as we are about to adopt it. I would add, though, time for incorporating it is rapidly running out. I will be delighted when the directive will actually be adopted tomorrow. I think it is a success for all of us, including myself, even though I am not exactly a keen swimmer. I only go in if I have no other choice. After 2015, I will be at least happier to take a dip. I hope, Commissioner, that I will be able to do so without any concerns in your Member State too."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples