Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-331"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.18.2-331"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to thank Parliament and in particular its Vice-President, Mr Vidal-Quadras, for this high-quality report. I should also like to pay tribute to the sense of responsibility displayed by the Members of Parliament today in relation to a complex problem. Finally, I should like to express my pleasure at the support which Parliament is offering the Commission’s initiative to launch this action programme in difficult overall circumstances, as you have highlighted.
The solution which the Commission adopted initially, as you mentioned, was to use the appropriations from heading 3 that remained at the end of the year by means of a transfer subject to the budgetary authority.
As the Committee on Budgets pointed out, however, this is not really an appropriate solution, and I am willing to acknowledge this, for a long-term programme. The fact remains that this proved to be the only way to get the programme under way after twenty years of waiting and two refusals by the Council and the European Parliament to finance these operations form the research budget, which I find perfectly understandable. So this initial solution was adopted as a pragmatic option. I accept that Parliament, in its capacity as budgetary authority, was unhappy with this, but I thank the House for its understanding and for authorising, as I said in December, this initial step forward.
Obviously, from a personal point of view, I would prefer a much more structural solution, as you stressed in your report, and in your proposal to convene a trialogue you are sending out a clear message: the matter is specific and sensitive enough to warrant being examined by experts from the three institutions. Indeed, I share Mr Desama’s opinion in requesting that this trialogue should be convened as quickly as possible. This is what we want, and, I think, what Parliament wants too. We have every reason to adopt a pragmatic and responsible approach. This is the approach Parliament favours and which I myself favour, and the Commission is already looking into the options which might be put before the trialogue in order to avoid the pitfalls inherent in this type of activity. This may lead us to investigate an approach which bypasses the constraints of annual budgetary payments, as you pointed out.
Moreover, in the preliminary draft budget 2001, the Commission has already made proposals in line with the concerns expressed by Parliament, particularly regarding specific budget lines. I think this is a matter to be discussed in the trialogue but also with the Committee on Budgets to ensure that the budget for 2001 can already include the first “positive transactions” on the subject.
Finally, I noted a number of requests from Members of Parliament, particularly the legitimate request for greater transparency. Let me tell you, to this end, that the Internet site requested is already operational. This is not a problem. Any citizen who so wishes can find information on the subject. Generally speaking, the necessary internal arrangements have already been made in the Joint Research Centre so that it can fulfil its role as the awarding authority fully and effectively and can assume total control of the external firms carrying out the main body of the work.
Finally, we are left with the legitimate question of what is to become of the installations that are still operating. Mrs Plooij van-Gorsel spoke of this. The Commission does not wish to dodge the issue, as it specified in its communication. The Commission also mentioned that the solutions adopted by Member States are not easy to apply at Community level. I should therefore be very much in favour of the trialogue tackling this question too: not just the matter of the installations already shut down but also that of the installations still operating, which will probably present a problem at some point in future.
Whatever the case, I must thank Parliament for its interest and for its responsible proposals.
Before getting to the heart of the matter, I should like to respond to three Members of Parliament, Mr Lang, Mrs Maes and Mr Mantovani, on the matter of the internal audit report for the Joint Research Centre of 28 April 1998. With reference to this subject, I shall simply say that this is no more than a draft report which has not been accepted by both sides, which may be surprising given that it is now the year 2000 and the report dates back to 1998, but I am only noting the fact.
As to the report then, I shall simply say that it concerns the problem before us today and much more, since it concerns all the activities of the Joint Research Centre. A number of points raised in this report have already been answered. Having said that, I share your wish for transparency and I would like to inform you that this draft report and the subsequent exchange of letters have been officially conveyed to the chairmen of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy.
I can only suggest that you familiarise yourselves with these documents, and I shall remain available to discuss the matter. I consider transparency to be absolutely crucial and I share your feeling on this. The documents are available and we are available to discuss them. Let me remind you, however, that this is a draft audit report which has not been subject to examination by both parties.
I shall now come to the report before the House this evening. All these problems, as you have pointed out, are due to the infrastructure and installations built under the Euratom Treaty in the early 1960s, in the face of the European Atomic Energy Community, in order to further the development of nuclear energy. Most of these installations have now been shut down and have become obsolete, and they have been maintained in a secure state pending decommissioning. It must be stressed that they are currently being kept in a secure state with a view to decommissioning in future.
It is, indeed, generally accepted that this delaying strategy, which has also been implemented by many Member States, is in fact extremely costly and that faster decommissioning would make it possible to manage the sites and the waste generated, as well as the available resources, better. The Commission therefore decided to initiate an action programme to tackle, in a general and in-depth fashion, the decommissioning of obsolete installations and the management of the waste generated since the 1960s. Indeed, I attach particular importance to the Community’s assuming the responsibilities arising as a result of the nuclear activities carried out in the Joint Research Centre at the start of the Euratom Treaty.
The ultimate objective of the action programme is to enable the land and buildings concerned to be reassigned for non-nuclear use, level 3 of the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This is a process which must, as you have pointed out, respect the environment and the health of the population, but one which will extend over around fifteen years at a cost which may be in excess of some EUR 230 million. Indeed, this sum applied only to installations already shut down. Initial calculations of the costs of the future decommissioning of installations still being used for research suggest additional costs of EUR 220 million.
Implementation of this action programme has already started. It is being carried out under the supervision of the Joint Research Centre, which is providing its experience and the personnel necessary, and with the assistance of a committee of independent experts from the Member States. When I say independent, I mean not only independent of the Joint Research Centre but also independent of industrial interests, since this is a problem that has been mentioned.
I now come to the most sensitive and problematic aspect of the matter: financing."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples