Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-02-Speech-2-298"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020702.13.2-298"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"There is no point in locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. Unfortunately this is all too true, but we must guard this stable door effectively now. Seveso and Bhopal are places where serious accidents have taken place. These accidents have led to measures which have, however, proved insufficient each time. And each time an enormous tragedy has ensued.
In Enschede, it transpired that current Seveso legislation is inadequate. A fireworks factory that did not fall within the scope of the directive destroyed an entire housing estate. The human suffering was enormous, and the grief for the victims remains. Residents of this estate were unaware of the presence of the fireworks factory. Authorities were only aware to a very limited extent. It is therefore obvious that rules need to be tightened up.
On behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should like to call for four amendments.
First of all, the threshold values must be lowered. This applies particularly to ammonium nitrate and pyrotechnic substances.
Secondly, the duty to inform must be improved. Information should not be kept back on account of industrial secrets or the threat of terrorism. This is all too ridiculous.
Thirdly, cooperation and coordination in Brussels must be improved, because we need to draw as many lessons as possible from near disasters. This is possible if we organise this through the European Commission and through Community institutions.
Finally, and this is an important point which Mr Lisi broached as well, we need to be given an accurate definition of a safe distance. It is evident that dangerous undertakings do not belong in housing estates. A pro-active policy must be adopted in order to remove such enterprises from these estates, if possible with the help of European funds. And clarity should finally be reached about what exactly constitutes a safe distance. The European Commission is to lay down guidelines in this respect.
To tighten up the rules is one thing, but to comply with them quite another. We could draft as many as rules we like, but if they are not implemented in common practice, then they will ultimately have little effect. The duty to communicate applies just as much to ourselves, the Commission and national authorities. Safety is not only a question of rules but indeed also of culture. It is a public task to promote this safety culture actively. Where safety is concerned, we should never take the soft option."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples