Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-12-Speech-1-139"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040112.9.1-139"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, in November 2002, the Commission proposed that an additional EUR two billion in credit should be granted to Euratom, thus raising the amount already loaned from EUR 4 billion to EUR six billion. At the same time, because of the enlargement of the EU, the Commission changed the purpose for which the loan was made and the conditions to which it was subject.
Euratom loans were first set up in 1977, and the amount has since been increased five times. The last time this was done, in 1990 – when the amount was increased to EUR 4 billion – the decision was taken that the credit limit of EUR 3.8 billion had to be reached before any increase could be considered. It is unfortunate that the committee has to date had no response to its query as to how much had actually been spent. The Commission’s calculations included EUR 688 million for the completion of K2R4 in the Ukraine, although it had to admit last October that this was not the amount spent on completing these reactors and that the Ukraine would be drawing on an amount of at least EUR 175 million, and at most EUR 500 million.
I think it very important that we bear in mind the fact that this change in the situation regarding the K2R4 reactors is not in accordance with the 1990 resolution, especially in view of the potential legal difficulties. Even though the Council debates the amount of the Euratom loans and the use to which they are put, Parliament has not, officially and formally, been consulted about the EUR 2 billion increase.
This enormous increase in credit has been the subject of critical debate, and my report gives expression to the regret that Parliament has not been consulted about it or about its potentially adverse effect on the European internal market.
My report, moreover, calls on the Council to consult Parliament in the event of any substantial amendment to the Commission proposal, especially in view of the fact that the Commission’s proposals are combined in a single document. It is precisely because the Council is working on a single document, discussing both the amount of the loans and their conditions, that it would be most regrettable if this House were, today and tomorrow, to be giving its opinion on a document that is utterly obsolete – as will quite conceivably be the case.
I would ask you to revisit this subject, for it would be a waste of our institution’s time and derogatory to this House’s dignity for us to hold a debate and vote on an utterly obsolete document, one that is currently being debated in the Council in a quite different way. We in this House expect the Commission to be honest about this.
As has already been said many times over, the Commission proposal contains two decisions, and what this means is that the Commission is taking the proposals apart, while we in this Parliament are not consulted about the increase. It also means, though, that the Commission has not incorporated in its proposals the resolutions that this House discussed in the course of the debate on the Convention’s draft for a constitution, in which we urged that the Euratom Treaty should expire in 2004, by analogy with what had happened with coal and steel. I think you should bear that in mind as well, Commissioner; Parliament has urged this on many occasions. Earlier in the debate, you yourself said that renewable energies are practically going without, so it is the case that only one source of energy receives loans of this sort.
I would like to conclude by saying something very briefly. I am aware that what I say in my capacity as rapporteur has to reflect the position taken by the committee. In committee, there was a very close vote on the amendment from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, which provides for loans to be made only for plant already in operation and only outside the European Union, to avoid competition being distorted. Quite apart from the fact that the committee rejected that only very narrowly, we must, tomorrow, be very careful to bear this issue in mind when we vote. Having only recently debated and adopted the directive on the European internal market for electricity and gas, we should not tolerate any distortions of competition."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples