Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-303"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.13.2-303"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteurs, Mr Lisi and also Mrs Corbey, for their hard work. I know also that they are very interested in this important issue.
As regards land-use planning, I acknowledge Parliament's strong wish to reinforce Article 12 of the Seveso II directive. The Commission will therefore accept Amendment No 13, and Amendment No 54 in part, but reject Amendments Nos 51 and 55. Furthermore, the Commission is of the opinion that the development of schemes of incentives and/or funding for the relocation of establishments is a task to be performed by Member States and cannot therefore accept Amendment No 31 either.
There are more things to be said about land use and I understand how important Parliament thinks this is. We will definitely follow up this matter and we have also had European workshops on land-use planning. As a result, it was decided to re-establish a European working group on land-use planning involving stakeholders from all interested parties and at all levels in order to develop harmonised guidance on technical advice, taking into account industrial risks in land use planning. This is what Parliament is asking for in Amendment No 30.
There are other amendments that the Commission cannot accept. I shall give you a couple of examples. Amendment No 35 suggests introducing a new article on training of staff, which would compel industrial operators to provide competent authorities with a training report every two years. However, the issue of training is appropriately addressed in Annex III and Annex IV. Moreover, as the safety report has to demonstrate that the aspect of safety management has been put into effect it must necessarily contain the information on training of staff. We do not advocate the duplication of effort that would be involved in producing a separate report on training.
Last, but not least, several amendments even aim at regulating how the public should be informed – newspapers, mail, Internet – and go as far as imposing certain obligations on the mayors of municipalities. This raises not only the issue of subsidiarity, but also the following question: should the provision of information be a one-way street or do we believe that responsible citizens should also actively exercise their right to know by requesting information? One of the core novelties of the Seveso II Directive is that it gives more rights to the public, but it also strikes a fine balance between active and passive information, thus imposing equal responsibilities on industrial operators, public authorities and citizens.
Let me confirm the Commission's position on the amendments. The Commission is able to accept Amendments Nos 1, 2, 8, 27, 32, 37, 39, 40, 42 and 45. The Commission can accept in principle Amendments Nos 9, 13, 16, 18, 23, 24, 46 and 48 and in part Amendments Nos 7, 17, 25, 26, 30, 50, 53 and 54. The Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 3 to 6, 10 to 12, 14, 15, 19 to 22, 28, 29, 31, 33 to 36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 51, 52 and 55.
So by way of conclusion, and excuse me for speaking for so long, I would like to emphasise that it is in our common interest – the interest of European citizens – to have this proposal adopted and enforced rapidly. I would therefore ask you to accept the Commission's view – which is largely shared by the Council – not to consider the present proposal as an opportunity for a major revision of the Seveso II Treaty. As you can see, I have already made an effort to accept as many amendments as possible, thus already going beyond our initial intention. I promise that within the timespan of the sixth environmental action programme the Commission will undertake to gather all the experience gained with the application of the present directive and present a new proposal for a more comprehensive review of Seveso II as necessary. Thank you for the debate.
On 3 October last year I made a declaration here in Parliament on the Toulouse accident. I proposed that we should move forward with this amendment. In the meantime we have been able to incorporate some conclusions from the Toulouse accident into the amendment proposal. However, I remain convinced that it is not because of deficiencies in the Seveso II directive that the Toulouse accident happened. Nor am I of the opinion that legislation is the only means to ensure industrial safety. Safety consists of a mosaic of factors, but the responsibility lies first and foremost with the operators of hazardous facilities. Thereafter it is the task of the public authorities to control the operators and to inspect the sites.
In my opinion – and I do not seem to be the only one to have this opinion – Toulouse was much more a problem of practical application of the legislation than a problem of legislation being deficient. As long as we face problems of enforcement, we should rather concentrate our efforts on good cooperation, both within industry and public authorities, in order to improve safety in practice and not by the letter of the law.
So the Commission proposal did not aim at a major overhaul of the Seveso II directive. As you are aware, the Seveso II directive has replaced the original Seveso directive of 1982 that had been in force for more than 15 years. Seveso II itself represented a major revision of the European major hazards legislation and has only been applicable for three years. I therefore stress that the Commission does not intend to move from Seveso II to Seveso III at this point in time.
Having said this, I regret to say that only a few of the 55 amendments proposed actually address issues raised in the Commission proposal itself. The majority of the other amendments seem to have been developed under the cloud of the tragic accident in Toulouse and address issues unrelated to the scope of the directive.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the AZF site in Toulouse was fully covered by the Seveso II directive unlike Baia Mare and Enschede. It has been repeatedly stated, including in the report of the inquiry commission set up by the French Assemblée Nationale, that the Seveso II directive contributes significantly to improving safety. Moreover, some of the suggested changes will actually increase red tape with no direct impact on safety. I will give you some examples. Nevertheless, the Commission has had a careful look at all amendments proposed with a view to accepting as many as possible. So we have taken a very positive approach.
Let me make some detailed comments on some of the proposed amendments. Firstly as regards mining, the Commission cannot agree to deleting the words "chemical and thermal" as proposed in Amendment No 6. In this context we also reject Amendment No 43 proposing to make references to the water framework and hazardous waste directives. In our opinion the Seveso II directive should only apply when chemical processes are involved and chemical substances are stored. It is not meant to be mining legislation or waste legislation and the future directive on mining waste management should cover safety aspects of disposal facilities.
Secondly, as regards explosives, the definition of the two new categories for explosives are the result of a multi-stakeholder consultation aimed at reinforcing the directive while not placing undue burdens on industry. The Commission therefore rejects Amendment No 49. Member States have the possibility to make use of Article 176 of the EC Treaty to introduce lower threshold levels at national level as the Netherlands has done.
Regarding ammonium nitrate, the Commission can accept Amendment No 39, in principle Amendment No 48, and in part Amendment No 53. I can also inform you that the Council's position on ammonium nitrate is almost identical to the amendments proposed and this is a sign of good cooperation between Council, Parliament and the Commission and will greatly facilitate an agreement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples