Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-16-Speech-4-165"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041216.12.4-165"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I am glad to be able to speak immediately after Mr Bowis, who has impressed upon us where we have got to 20 years after 3 December 1984, when gas from a 35-tonne cocktail of highly toxic substances caused 7 000 people to die when their hearts and lungs failed. To this day, some 25 000 have gone down in history as the victims of the biggest chemical accident ever recorded, and some 500 000 are still crippled as a consequence of it.
What, though, was done for the victims? Research has shown that, 15 years ago, compensation to the tune of USD 470 million was agreed on by Union Carbide and the Indian Government. So far, the 100 000 officially registered as victims have received USD 300 each. There are 2 500 houses for widows along with seven hospitals, and many facilities have been built, but what has happened to the rest of the money, some USD 400 million? I have to tell Mrs Gill that we really do have to ask who is to blame for that. The ground is still contaminated. The ground water is heavily contaminated with mercury, and that is not going to go away. Toxic residues are stored in the open air. Small wonder, then, that we end up with the situation that Mr Bowis has described, with chronic illnesses, brain damage, and children born with deformities. If there is to be any substantial improvement in medical provision for the victims, then the Indian Prime Minister, Mr Singh, will have to intervene, and the government should comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling and finally release the funds and enable full compensation to be paid out. Many chemical companies still have production operations in India and in other parts of the world where labour and environmental standards are far below those that apply in the European Union or the USA.
As the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs’ rapporteur on the REACH programme, I can do no other than reiterate the demand made in the working paper: if there is to be comparability, we need rules made by the European Union, and, in the same way, rules laid down as standards by the WTO. Those whose desire for increased profits leads them to allow the minimum environmental requirements without exception are accepting the likelihood of a second Bhopal one day, and that is something that none of us can afford."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples