Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-12-Speech-1-127"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040112.8.1-127"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, we know all about
. It is just too bad. Such is life.
This is not the kind of issue the companies can deal with. It calls for decisions at the level of the governments and competent authorities in each of the Member States of the European Union.
This proposal also has significant implications for funding. Such is the proposal prepared and endorsed by the Commission.
It may prove necessary to agree on a less radical approach than the one in the proposal. That would be something quite different. I should state that it could only come about in the context of a global agreement with the Council. In any case the outcome would be far greater transparency regarding the nature and management of funds. I could quote a case where bankruptcy was declared. Subsequently, when funds where needed, none were available, because funds for decommissioning had been allocated to the bankruptcy fund.
I am bound to say that work is under way within the Council. The outgoing Italian Presidency presented a number of proposals. I trust they will be taken forward by the incoming Irish Presidency, as they should facilitate progress on this crucial issue. They will also allow work to continue in this sector as it has in others.
I have a challenge for certain honourable Members. I would like them to identify any directives predating the present Commission and providing genuine support and backing for renewable energy in Europe. I challenge the honourable Members to come up with any. I mean specific measures, not mere declarations. By contrast, I am certainly in a position to circulate directives prepared and adopted during the present Commission’s term of office. Further, I challenge anyone to come up with specific measures on energy efficiency predating this Commission’s term. There was hardly anything at all, other than declarations. On the other hand, I am indeed able to list the achievements of the last four years.
In conclusion, Mr President, I should like to say that the Commission has not adopted an ideological stance with regard to energy. The Commission works on the basis of objectives and criteria. Its objectives are to guarantee the safety of the population, to provide maximum transparency for the citizens and to guarantee a safe and reliable supply of energy for the European Union. Consequently, the Commission works consistently in the interests of the citizens, employing a range of instruments. The Commission is constantly striving to promote energy efficiency and to support renewable energy. It also strives to ensure safety in the nuclear industry and the safety of radioactive waste. It should be remembered that as I mentioned earlier, nuclear power stations are not the only source of radioactive waste.
I believe issues such as nuclear power are very serious indeed. It is not appropriate to tackle them from a religious standpoint. In my view it is important to make an effort to be rational. Account should be taken of the current state of technological development, the current state of the European Union, the current state of international and European institutions and of current energy needs. Problems such as meeting the Kyoto objectives should also be borne in mind. There is no scope for rabble rousing in dealing with such issues. Nonetheless, I do appreciate that concern might be felt. I also appreciate that the views of others might differ from my own. I can even appreciate that it is possible to hold a view running counter to the Commission’s proposals for solving these problems. After all, these are the very problems we are dealing with.
I fail to understand, however, how plainly irrational positions can be adopted on this issue. It is an issue which is unfortunately very important for the future of the European Union and for the safety and well-being of its citizens.
Today’s debate concerns initiatives regarding the safety of nuclear power stations. It also concerns the treatment of radioactive waste. Nuclear power stations are not the only source of radioactive waste. I would remind the House radioactive waste results from a whole range of industrial activities other than the generation of electricity. Medical procedures produce waste of this kind too. I am sure honourable Members are not opposed to medical applications. I am sure too that the House does not wish to put a stop to scientific advances resulting from progress made thanks to this technology. The fight against cancer is one example. I suggest all these aspects are discussed. It is essential to guard against seeing everything in black and white in a completely irrational way.
I can understand all the approaches to this issue. What I cannot understand, however, is not making even the slightest effort to have a rational debate on such serious matters.
Turning to the second point, it is claimed that what is on the table today serves no purpose whatsoever. May I enquire how these critics think the Union has been working with the candidate countries all these years? It is alleged that the International Atomic Energy Agency alone is sufficient. Allow me to pose a further question. If that is the case, what is the Union trying to negotiate with Russia, for instance, with a view to improving the safety of its nuclear facilities? It should be remembered that the candidate countries have all been members of the International Atomic Energy Agency from its creation. If there were no added value to the measures under negotiation and on the table today, none of them would have been necessary. Quite simply, all that would have been required would be to allow the candidate countries to continue abiding by their interpretation of the IAEA’s rules.
In my view, the argument adduced by those who maintain that all this means nothing just does not stand up. All this actually means a great deal. It means equivalent safety standards will apply to all facilities. Candidate countries have been required to strengthen and improve measures. In some cases they have been required to shut down their reactors. What is on the table today means these same standards can be required everywhere and can be imposed in future. Ladies and gentlemen, this therefore amounts to guarantees. I find it impossible to understand the stance adopted by some individuals. It would seem they are opposed to the proposals and would actually like there to be an accident to blow everything sky-high. That attitude beggars belief.
I simply cannot understand how it can be argued that strengthening safety means pandering to the nuclear industry. That amounts to saying it is best to leave things be and run major risks.
This package is set to have significant impact on the safety of nuclear power stations. It will impact on waste management also. With regard to the latter, I grant that the dates set in the original text were over-ambitious. Nonetheless, cut-off dates will be set. Countries will therefore be forced to take decisions. It is important to bear in mind at the outset that there is no question of deep geological repositories being perceived as the only solution, to the exclusion of all others. Quite the opposite is the case. Research into waste disposal is being financed. In particular, this is true of all the research into transmutation. The latter is one of the most promising options for the future. This does not mean it is not appropriate to take certain measures here and now. I certainly agree with Mrs Isler Beguin regarding temporary geological storage. Finland has opted for this. The decision was taken to set up geological storage for fifty years. This is not a permanent facility. There is therefore scope for other solutions in the future. That is what is being suggested as a way forward. All Member States of the Union would do well to learn from the Finnish approach. Decisions should not be evaded and left for later governments to take. It is essential to assume responsibility and move forward on these issues."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples