Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-13-Speech-2-131"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040113.5.2-131"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I voted in favour of this important report, for the same reasons I expressed in my explanation of vote on the other reports in this ‘nuclear package’.
Views on this sensitive issue differ substantially between Member States. Similarly, the level of acceptance of nuclear risk on the part of the citizens varies markedly from Member State to Member State. Fortunately, however, emphasis appears to have been placed on the crucial issue of promoting and sharing ‘best practice’ in many areas of European life.
The Commission’s aim, with this proposal, is to ensure that best practice in the field of nuclear safety is implemented in all Member States and in all civil nuclear installations.
I believe that the intention of this proposal is not to replace the Convention on Nuclear Safety – concluded under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency – to which all EU States are party. It is rather aimed at maintaining a high level of minimum safety, under the auspices and responsibility of the Member States, on the basis of closer cooperation and greater solidarity, thus resulting in ‘best practice’.
I would vote against the proposal currently before us if it implied a shift towards shared competences from what has hitherto been traditionally and exclusively a matter of national competence. This is a very reasonable concern on the rapporteur’s part, one which has always been something of a ‘warning sign’ and a clear delimitation of the legislator’s spirit."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples