Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-10-Speech-1-158"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071210.20.1-158"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the issue of fire safety is important for the European Union and its citizens. The Treaty of Rome established the collective principle of free movement of goods, services, capital and people. In terms of people, we have put a great deal of emphasis on health and safety issues in the workplace and consumer protection.
We, therefore, call on the Commission to look into the introduction of a directive laying down minimum provision in all Member States that mandates that all new hotels over 20 beds should be fully sprinkled and that existing hotels over 20 beds should at least, have corridors and exit routes sprinkler-protected. That would not be a huge economic burden: it would cost less than an additional 2%. Of course, existing hotels should be given adequate time to comply, but what we want is to act now and not wait until we are forced into action by the public following a major tragedy when hundreds die.
Yet, whilst the mobility of business and workers, along with tourism, is vital to our economic well-being and the fulfilment of the Lisbon competition agenda, we cannot do a simple thing like guaranteeing that European citizens, whether as consumers or workers, are equally safe from the dangers of fire when they stay or work in hotels across the Member States of the EU.
The Union has competence for health and safety. We limit lawnmower noise but not the prospect of being burnt to death. Consumer protection means that we are concerned about the safety of lifts and escalators but not the safety of hotels. The Commissioner has just said that all our actions are proportional. I wonder if she considers that it is proportional that no action has been taken with respect to safety in hotels.
Fire-sprinkler systems are highly effective, extinguishing or controlling 99% of fires at the earliest stage. No one has, reportedly, ever died in a fully-sprinkled hotel in the EU. However, since 2003 alone, over 60 people in the Union have died in fires in hotels where no sprinklers were fitted.
Tragically, three of these were in my own constituency over the summer in the Penhallow Hotel in Newquay, Cornwall, where a fire got out of hand because there were no sprinklers. One of the people who died was a disabled woman who was unable to make her way out of the building unaided. What is the Commission doing to protect people like her?
The Commission will claim subsidiarity. Get real! How many people have died in the EU from lawnmower noise or from lift or escalator accidents since 2003? Yet the Commission has seen fit to take away Member State autonomy with regard to these areas.
Fire regulations with regard to sprinkler provision vary widely across the EU, with Hungary probably having the best, and France, which has the highest recent death rate, having none at all.
Some more enlightened European hotel chains, such as the Accor Group, are now adopting the sprinkling of new hotels, following in the footsteps of the American brands Hilton, Marriott and Sheraton.
But it is not good enough to leave it to self-regulation. At least one federal state is not prepared to excuse inaction by talking about subsidiarity. In the US, all new hotels are sprinkler-protected by law. Indeed, federal employees cannot claim expenses unless they stay in sprinkled hotels when on business trips."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples