Mr President, first of all, I should like to say thank you to Mr Maaten for his constructive cooperation on this matter. I should also like to say thank you to the Commission, which I think has come up with a very balanced proposal for the new bathing water directive which takes account of developments over the last 26 years. I think it is right to limit the number of parameters, and I also think that the correct limit values for bacteria content have been found. I also think that we in the committee have adopted some improvements, and I should like to draw attention to a few of these. We have secured a sound context in the shape of the water framework directive and, above all, we have ensured that there is reliable, comprehensible information for people, including bathers, about the quality of bathing water without our rushing into having enormous flag displays on our beaches. I also think it is right also to include other leisure activities, such as windsurfing, in the directive. A lot has happened in the 26 years since the first bathing water directive was drafted. I think that the new directive has been designed in such a way, and with such a code of practice, as to enable the individual Member States reasonably to administer it. The last thing I want to emphasise is that a majority of us in the committee reached the view that the bathing beaches or bathing waters concerned must be those that attract large numbers of bathers so that, in this case too, we support the Commission’s definition of what kind of bathing waters we are talking about. I think that this rule too is one that the national authorities will be able reasonably to administer. I should like to warn against two of the amendments tabled. The first is Amendment No 19 on transitory contamination. It is a proposal whereby the authorities would now be able to disregard water samples, even if they revealed contamination and health hazards, if the same authorities simply choose to characterise the contamination as transitory. The arrangement would mean that bathers would be in danger of being told that the bathing water in question was of good or excellent quality, even if the water were in reality contaminated. This would be an impairment of the directive, and I hope the proposal is not adopted. I understand that transitory contamination is partly a Scottish problem, and I think that, if there are problems on some Scottish beaches, these should be solved in Scotland, rather than have the reduction in bathing water quality extended to the whole of Europe. The second proposal to which I wish to draw attention is Amendment No 76 concerning the definition of bathing water. It is a definition that would lead to the authorities having to go out on a daily basis to count the number of bathers on the beaches. There would have to be more than 100 bathers a day for at least 20 days a year. I think this amendment should be rejected for a number of reasons. First of all, it would involve giving unduly detailed direction to the Member States in a way that would be entirely contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. Secondly, it would, in my view, be practically impossible to administer. Who on earth would count the bathers every day out on the beaches of Europe. I would say that, if this proposal is adopted, we shall simply be a laughing stock throughout Europe.

Political group: PSE