Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-329"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.14.2-329"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this is a historic framework programme. For the first time the preparatory work is on schedule – even ahead of schedule – and agreement has already been reached in the first round. Thanks go to everyone who has been involved.
This time I am particularly interested in Mr Alyssandrakis’s report as I myself was the rapporteur of a similar report in the fifth framework programme. Fusion is the energy solution of the future, and when it becomes established we can forget discussions about the energy deficit, the overly large share of imported energy in Europe, and greenhouse emissions. The enormous potential associated with fusion means we must make it possible: the more resources we invest, the faster we shall achieve results. For this reason, the ceiling of EUR 200 million the Commission has set for the ITER programme is misguided. Hopefully more of us next time will look further into the future and have the courage to set aside more resources for fusion research. It is in Europe’s interests to hold onto ITER. ITER, if a Member State is to be chosen as its location, will bring a massive increase in know-how to Europe, as well as hardcore technical skills and new technology.
There already exist workable methods for the temporary storage of high-active fuels so there is no need to use the framework programme to finance this sort of research. For this reason Amendment Nos 7 and 8 should be deleted. There is a ready-made model for bedrock disposal already in Finland, although new alternatives can always be examined. Nuclear power research and the issue of safety associated with its proper use are largely one and the same thing.
The Commission has recently indicated a desire to create common, pan-European minimum safety standards. This carries with it its own risks. Whenever there is harmonisation there is a danger that we will go with the weakest link. On the other hand we have very good experience of cooperation between authorities. This way the bad learn from the better, and there is no need for compromises, which the weakest cannot achieve, and which at the same time would lower standards of safety in the most advanced Member States. Regulators already practise excellent, impartial cooperation. For this reason I support Amendment No 17.
Any development of harmonised regulatory approaches falls outside the scope of the framework programme. The responsibility for following western safety regulations rests with the Member States, and responsibility for monitoring rests with that most viable of organisations, the Western European Nuclear Regulatory Association."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples