summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | index
The European Parliament yesterday adopted its 2nd reading of new EU rules on the quality of bathing waters across the European Union.
New maximum levels have been agreed for the presence of e-coli and other faecal and chemical effluent in bathing waters, with a deadline of 2011 for all registered bathing waters to achieve the standard of 'sufficient' quality.
However, MEPs voted to delete the 'sufficient' quality status 8 years after entry into force of the new directive. From then on, all bathing waters would have to achieve a more stringent 'good' quality.
The European Parliament laid great emphasis on the need for better information to the general public using the bathing water beaches. MEPs voted for amendments introducing :
MEPs also voted for national or local authorities to have in place emergency plans to deal with accidents, floods or infrastructure damage.
(If Council rejects any
one of the Parliament's amendments, discussions would have to proceed to conciliation
between the European Parliament and Council of Ministers).
summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | top | index
summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | top | index
Caroline Jackson (Conservative, South West): Mr President, this is a very useful and important revision of the 1976 Directive. We should remember that it does mean real improvements in water quality within the 'good' and 'excellent' categories now proposed… The implementation of the 1976 Directive has taken 30 years at least and cost a lot of money. I represent the South-West of England, where we have spent more than £1 billion… in clearing up the bathing beaches around the coast of that region of England alone. That has meant a 15% year-on-year increase in water rates and I do not think people will be prepared to pay a lot more for a much more demanding directive.
I am in favour of keeping the category of 'sufficient'. I know that some want to delete it, but it seems to me that given that the new 'good' and 'excellent' standards are much tougher, and that even with investment some beaches may fail, especially after rain, we need the 'sufficient' category as a sort of probationary category.
Finally, on the question of recreational waters… I highlight the fact that the British Canoe Union is begging us not to support the extension of this directive to recreational waters
I wish this directive well. I remember the 1976 one when it first came forward. This is a great improvement and we should remember that.
John Purvis (Conservative, Scotland): Mr President, Scotland has found it very difficult to meet even the 1976 Bathing Water Directive. The main problem for us is agriculture and the run-off because of high rainfall, especially on the west coast…The land use on the west coast is predominantly livestock: sheep and cattle and wild deer. So, every time there is a heavy rainfall, some faecal material will be washed down from the moors and onto the beaches.
The Scottish Executive, the local authorities and Scottish Water have spent huge sums of money trying to minimise these occurrences, keeping livestock out of the water courses and installing simple treatment systems that are designed to stem the natural flow. However, it is impossible to stop it completely.
Scotland has miles and miles of splendid
beaches… Scotland sometimes even has beautiful weather, when tourists and
local people flock to our beaches. It would be perverse and severely damaging
if Parliament, led by the Green brigade - who, sadly, know so little of the
real world - were to remove the 'sufficient' classification in this new directive
and condemn Scotland's beaches to the loss of their coveted and deserved status
among the best and most beautiful in Europe.
summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | top | index
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?L=EN&OBJID=95800&MODE=SIP&NAV=X&LSTDOC=N&LEVEL=2
summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | top | index