Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-15-Speech-2-386"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051115.30.2-386"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I will start by thanking the rapporteur for her very correct and deep analysis of the challenges concerning decommissioning.
As regards the Bohunice issue, firstly the decision to close the reactors was based on safety reasons. In the European Union, WENRA –the Western European Nuclear Regulators’ Association – decides on the safety requirements in particular Member States. It proposed that those types of reactors were not upgradable, not because they came from the former Soviet Union, but because of their technical characteristics. That was why the closure of those reactors was requested during the negotiations. That information was known early on, and so the negotiations took into account all the possible consequences. The decision was not taken in the last package: in many cases, including cases in the Slovak Republic, governments made early commitments to close particular reactors, for example those in Bohunice. That is why I reject the argument that political pressure was exerted: the decision was based on the analyses made by those responsible for nuclear safety in the European Union. That is a fact.
Negotiations have been conducted accordingly, and all possible implications have been taken into account, not just decommissioning but other issues too. That is also why we have different protocols for Lithuania and Slovakia.
I realise that decommissioning is a huge task, but I can clearly explain the basis for the Commission’s proposal: it was based on the results of the accession negotiations. Any other issue should be based on other considerations, but at this stage we are unable to move on to other considerations.
My services are in close contact with the Slovak authorities to discuss the challenge. However, this is clearly a commitment that was approved by the European Union citizens and the Slovak citizens in the accession negotiations and it must be honoured, not only from the EU side but also from the Slovak side. It is, therefore, a challenge that we should face together.
At the same time, there is a question mark over whether decommissioning funds should be used at a time when all the reactors have been operational and are still operational: if you do not have the decommissioning fund, the price is cheaper. But then, at the end of the day, who is paying? Taxpayers? Other citizens? This really is a global challenge.
The debate today, at this late hour, is very relevant. The Commission has already tried to make legislative proposals on the decommissioning funds because they are essential for competitiveness inside the European Union and for clarifying who will pay for them. I agree entirely that the polluter should pay. That element should be included in the price.
The Commission will prepare a recommendation and will insist on the sufficient and transparent use of decommissioning funds that should be available when required. That is the basic truth that we should confront when discussing nuclear energy. Competition issues definitely will not be excluded from the debate, because it is very important to know what support schemes we are providing for other parts of our energy mix. That is a very relevant issue.
I thank you very much for the debate tonight. I am really pleased it was so detailed. We should continue this debate when we discuss energy issues."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples