Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this recommendation for second reading on the Council common position on the proposal to amend the ‘Seveso directive’ warrants a brief synopsis of its history. In the sensitive climate of the tragic accidents which have affected the chemical industry and, in particular, the communities living in the areas surrounding these sites, as well as the environment, the Commission presented to Parliament and the Council its proposal to amend Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996, which lays down provisions, of course, on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances. The proposal had the merit of being based on very thorough scientific work and of providing a constructive analysis of this sensitive matter. At first reading, I and other Members explained why it is necessary for the European Parliament to send out a signal loud and clear. My aim – which I confirm today – is, as far as possible, to ensure that such accidents are never repeated, ensuring both the safety of the citizens and workers at these plants and, of course, environmental protection. The Council has produced a common position which essentially takes into account many of Parliament’s concerns, but a number of grey areas still remain, and these are the following. Firstly, the inclusion of mining activities and land-fill sites, an issue on which the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has decided to retable the amendments from first reading, in other words the inclusion in the scope of the directive of all types of preparation and processing of dangerous substances in these sites – not just chemical or thermal preparations, that is, as envisaged by the Commission. I would point out, moreover, that we are only talking about active plant. We are aware that the Commission has, just recently, launched a specific proposal for a directive on the management of waste from mining activities, the terms of which will, moreover, have to be decided together with the European Parliament at the appropriate time, but, until then, there is and will continue to be a gap in the law which, given the recent accidents which have alarmed public opinion, cannot be tolerated. However, I am not excluding the possibility that the progress of the new directive on mining activities through conciliation might make it easier to reach agreement on this point. The second question is that of staff training. Here too, taking the same line as the Commission this time, we have proposed specific training measures on managing emergencies for all staff, including the staff of sub-contracting firms. Indeed, it is appropriate to provide for adequate measures not just on the handling of dangerous substances but on managing emergencies too, in order to limit potential damage as far as possible and to guarantee workers’ safety fully. However, as rapporteur, I feel it is unnecessary to include the list of training measures in the notification provided for in Article 6 of the directive, which is why I would urge you to vote against Amendment No 3, as at first reading. The third question is that of urban development planning. In this area, the Council has already taken into consideration Parliament’s desire to lay the foundations for definition at European level of methodological criteria which are necessary to assess compatibility between the sites in question and the areas at risk, not least by means of Union funding. However, given the great diversity of rules, regional situations, competences and responsibilities which characterises this aspect of safety – situating plant in terms of urban development planning – I believe that we must, of necessity, invoke the principle of subsidiarity and leave it up to the Member States to decide on the minimum distances. That is why I have called for a split vote on Amendment No 6, and will only vote for the first part of the amendment. As regards the map showing risk areas, the committee believes that the pictorial representation of areas adjacent to the establishments subject to accident risks would be an effective, easily comprehensible measure for all the citizens concerned, who are entitled to greater clarity in this regard. To this end, the rapporteur has incorporated the wording used by the European Commission in the amended proposal for a directive. Lastly, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has proposed once again that a distinction should be made between forms of potassium nitrate, with new thresholds, in order to avoid farmers who use a form of potassium nitrate which could not be classed as fuel, falling within the scope of the directive. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, these are the main points. Clearly, we are on track for a conciliation procedure. Indeed, the Council was unable to reach agreement on a compromise package and it did not, if the truth be known, seem to me to be particularly interested in achieving such an agreement with Parliament. I remain confident, however, that, with a constructive debate, it will be possible to achieve a solution which ensures maximum safety in these plants. I would like to thank all the members of the Committee on the Environment and the staff of the European Commission, who have been particularly helpful and cooperative.

Political group: PPE-DE