Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-18-Speech-4-196"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991118.9.4-196"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Neither the age of a plant nor its location, nor indeed the state-of-the-art design are any guarantee of Y2K date compliance. I would not like to be in this building at midnight on 31 December – a mere 43 days from now. Lifts, fire alarms – what would work, if anything? There is a serious point to my jesting. We only have to think about it. This is a modern state-of-the-art multi-million plant.
In Ireland successive governments have expressed their concern to UK governments concerning the accident rate at the BNFL institutions, particularly the accident rate at Sellafield on the UK's least-populated west coast, only a few miles across from our most populated east coast. You may laugh, Mr President, but I am serious. It is not a major credible accident I have in mind and I do not mean to be alarmist. But I have to put on record my lack of confidence in the British nuclear industry's safety record. As a sovereign, non-nuclear nation, we in Ireland have a right to self-determination in terms of our people's health and environment. Consultation and communication between our two countries over the years regarding the British nuclear programme have not been good. A certain high-handed arrogance has been apparent despite public relations by Sellafield in recent years.
I conclude by saying that all nuclear nations need to state clearly and honestly their programmes for Y2K date compliance, to assure their own and neighbouring nations of their readiness. Even at this late stage it is better we know the problems than adopt a head-in-the-sand approach."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples