Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like first of all to thank Mr Lisi most sincerely for the work he has accomplished. As has just been said, tomorrow Parliament will have to vote on this report’s second reading and, as with other reports, we here are of course divided between the wish to take negotiations with the Council and Commission as far as possible and the desire to get this text finalised quickly so it can be implemented as soon as possible. At the end of the first reading, the Council incorporated a large number of amendments adopted by Members, but also rejected several proposals. A few weeks ago, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy adopted by a very large majority a text which confirms the requirements to which we will have to submit if we want to make progress on prevention. On these questions, the European Union must show its unity and its willingness to improve the legislation in force in answer to the legitimate concerns of the European citizens. It is also an opportunity for us to give some meaning to this European construction which is often accused of devoting more time to drawing up product standards than to the Europeans’ well-being, let alone their health. I am therefore glad that the Committee on the Environment has adopted the amendments concerning obligations to notify the competent authorities, because we need to be very demanding in this area without, Commissioner, being bureaucratic: there is no reason why we cannot simplify the documents. The amendments concerning training for all staff, including staff of subcontractors, seem to me to be essential, because it has been evident from several accidents that a lack of training and of information was involved. On the question of safety distances between establishments and sensitive areas, the terrible accident in Toulouse showed the weaknesses in the relevant legislation and we must include these things in our report, just as we must in future extend the mapping of sensitive areas. One point presents a problem and seems to be meeting with stiff opposition from the Council and the Commission, as you have just said, Commissioner; it is the question of extending the scope to all mining and waste processing activities using dangerous substances. The Council and the Commission want to restrict the scope of the Seveso II Directive to the chemical and thermal processing of waste only; they justify this position by the fact that in its proposal concerning mining waste the Commission refers, in Article 6 on the prevention of major accidents, to the provisions of the amended Seveso II Directive. However, if we want to avoid a legal void concerning certain mining activities and certain methods of processing mining waste until this new legislative proposal is adopted, the European Parliament must vote in favour of Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 13 without prejudice to the scope of the future report and with no talk of redundancies. I would therefore like Parliament to adopt the amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment, thus strengthening on-site prevention and the safety of European citizens. Like the Council, we want to reach an agreement in this stage of the legislative procedure but, I hope you understand, not at any price.

Political group: PSE