Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-14-Speech-3-157"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-06-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000614.6.3-157"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-06-14-Speech-3-1582
lpv:speaker	lp:Gérard Caudron2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Parti socialiste (1999-07-20--2002-07-09)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-08--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; PES (1999-07-20--2002-01-16)3
lpv:translated text	". The purpose of the programme that we have been debating today is to organise the dismantling of the Joint Research Centre’s nuclear installations and the management of waste resulting from their nuclear activities. I do not have any major disagreement with the basic proposal, but I do have questions about this programme’s budget, and the rapporteur has not provided us with any practical proposals on this. It is true that he rejected the proposal by the European Commission. Let us remember that the Commission proposed that it would finance this operation by using, at the end of each year, unspent appropriations from heading 3. To this end, it would use a ‘reception’ line under the current sub-section B4, which covers energy, the monitoring of nuclear safety and the environment. This solution may be satisfactory insofar as it places financing outside the framework programmes for research, a point stressed by the European Parliament, but it nevertheless falls short of what is required. We cannot accept the long-term financing of the dismantling of nuclear activities through a ‘miscellaneous’ line, of an order which is left to chance. I must take this opportunity to say that I do not approve of the growing frequency with which we resort to this type of line! I imagine that this is what led the rapporteur to “take note” of the Commission’s proposal, without actually putting it into practice. The report proposes that we establish a trialogue between the institutions in order to reach a solution but says nothing about the alternative means for financing that have been suggested. The most mistaken course of action would therefore be to have the dismantling of these nuclear activities financed by Member States, by methods that still remain to be found. That would inevitably cause a backlash in the countries that are not greatly affected by this problem. On the other hand, the most suitable solution is the one that seeks to have this programme financed by a self-contained budget line. I am quite aware that it is not the easiest solution, because it involves voting for additional appropriations in the review of the Financial Perspectives. Nevertheless, we must provide ourselves with the means to achieve our ambitions, particularly when we are talking about nuclear activity. In the long term, then, we will have to put pressure on the Council to accept the creation of this self-contained budget line. In the shorter term, for pragmatic reasons, we should not obstruct the rapid implementation of this programme. I therefore support the following compromise: in the very short term we set up the ‘picking up the pieces’ line proposed by the Commission, and initiate the trialogue promptly in order, in the medium term, to achieve a vote for an self-contained budget line."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph