Mr President, Commissioner Wallström, to begin with, I would like to refer briefly to the legislative history of this measure. The tragic accidents that have affected the chemical industry in recent years and, above all, the people living near these sites and the surrounding area could only attract the European Union’s attention. Areas such as Baia Mare, Aznalcollar and, above all, Toulouse and Enschede, have become synonymous with environmental human tragedies, to which we have to respond clearly. It is in this sensitive context that the Commission presented to Parliament and the Council its proposal to amend Directive 96/82 of December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances. This proposal was the product of in-depth scientific work and we are pleased to acknowledge the Commission’s desire to tackle the shortcomings of the previous directive with a constructive mindset that has enabled us all to send a clear message to both the chemical industry and the people. We will make every effort to ensure that, in future, adequate control measures are adopted and respected. At first reading I, together with other Members, explained the reasons why this strong signal is needed from the European Parliament, and, together, we adopted an approach, which we confirm today, of ensuring that the accidents which have occurred to date do not happen again, guaranteeing protection for the citizens and the workers at these plants and providing substantial protection for the surrounding area. As you are aware, the Council achieved a common position which incorporated the essence of many of Parliament’s concerns. It is true that, after this second reading, there are still some grey areas, although I believe they have been clarified by the conciliation that we carried out which is now awaiting Parliament’s approval. I will mention briefly the main points on which the Conciliation Committee reached a compromise: the first concerns mining activities. The compromise that we reached seeks to guarantee complimentarity between the directive in question and the Directive on the management of waste from the extractive industries, which is at its first reading in Parliament. The scope of the ‘Seveso directive’ is thus extended to operational tailings disposal facilities when used in connection with the processing of minerals. As regards training of staff, in this sector we insisted from the outset on the importance of adequate training of staff in the prevention and management of possible accidents. This idea was confirmed in the Conciliation Committee and Parliament obtained provision for adequate training to be given not only to staff at establishments in question but also to sub-contracted staff at these establishments. As regards a third aspect, maps showing risk areas, Parliament has repeatedly called for provision for illustrated maps to inform the public concerned of risk areas and the extent of the risk, as it believes that this is a simple, clear means of informing all those who could be affected of the potential risk in the event of an accident. An agreement was reached in the Conciliation Committee which provides for these maps or images – equivalent representations – to be included in safety reports and to be made available to the public. My penultimate point concerns potassium nitrate. Specifications and new thresholds for potassium nitrate, proposed by Parliament, were adopted by the Council in the Conciliation Committee. This amendment will prevent farmers using a type of potassium nitrate that is not classified as a fuel from being unduly listed as being subject to the security measures provided for in this directive. The last point regards the database for land-use planning. The compromise reached in the Conciliation Committee regarding a database for risk data and risk scenarios – a database which seeks to assess the compatibility of industrial sites with sensitive areas – calls on the Commission to draw up the necessary guidelines for the creation of such a database within three years, whilst, at the same time, preserving the necessary subsidiarity in the face of the diversity of situations. I will end, Mr President, by thanking the Commission and the Members. I feel that we have reached a satisfactory agreement together which takes into consideration all the demands that were expressed, especially the main objective that I mentioned at the beginning, the need to send our fellow citizens a clear message. Lastly, a technical note: Mr President, in Annex I (I) in particular points 5 and 6, there are definitions that could give rise to ambiguity. I would ask you to note that the correct version is the English version.

Political group: PPE-DE