Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-09-Speech-4-122-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110609.5.4-122-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, honourable Members, I will be happy to discuss your main comments and proposals relating to the stress tests that will be carried out over the next few months. First of all, however, if you are concerned that a watered-down stress test will turn into a seal of approval without the necessary objectivity, I can assure you that I will do everything possible during the months to come, together with my offices, to ensure that this assumption is unfounded.
To get to the heart of the matter, the energy mix remains a matter for the national governments and parliaments. We may welcome this or we may regret it. As a democrat, I have to accept it. The fact that independent teams are now, for the first time, monitoring the national nuclear regulators and that the monitors are being monitored is, in my opinion, an historic step forwards in the interest of the common safety of the citizens of Europe.
Mr Turmes, aircraft crashes are covered by the stress tests. The consequences of an aircraft crashing onto a nuclear power station are specifically included in the test criteria and, therefore, form part of the investigation in the third stage. I will be happy to show you. Mr Turmes, if every Member of this House were as noisy as you are, there would be chaos in the Chamber. Only one person can get away with this. I will be happy to talk about this afterwards. Aircraft crashes do form part of the investigation because the impact of a crash on the safety of nuclear power plants is specifically covered in the criteria.
My next point is that I have been accused of concealing the voluntary nature of the tests. Exactly the opposite is true. From the first meeting in committee onwards, I have always emphasised that the stress test is voluntary. However, we have persuaded every Member State to take part. All 14 Member States have voluntarily opted to become involved, which is a big success for the European Parliament.
What will happen at the end? I would like to make it quite clear that I am relying on the power of facts. If there are serious problems with a particular nuclear power station, the citizens of Europe and of the relevant Member State will call for the necessary measures to be taken. This is what I believe and this is why transparency, thoroughness and objectivity are so important. I am determined to promote this over the next few months. The proposal to revise the Euratom Treaty is wonderful. However, the Euratom Treaty is primary law and, therefore, is not the concern of the Commission but of the Member States. A change to the Euratom Treaty requires unanimity. I can only say to anyone who has good proposals to make on this subject: do you really believe, given the variety of opinions and moods and the supporters and opponents of nuclear power, that we would be likely to achieve unanimity about the continuation of the Euratom Treaty? I do not believe that it is very likely. For this reason, I am in favour of taking a realistic approach and making the best we can out of the Treaty that we have.
The next question concerns the independence of the test. The peer review during the third stage, which is the main part of the test, involves a team with seven external members. It has been specifically stated that the team can include experts from third countries. It also involves the Commission. You can rely on me to make sure that the Commission officials do not bring any preconceptions or prejudices with them and do their work thoroughly and objectively. To assume otherwise would be unfair to our officials. This is why I will be standing up for my officials during this process.
Then there is the question of Belarus and Russia. The fact is that our authority, yours here in Parliament and ours in the Commission, is unfortunately very limited in Minsk. We simply have to accept that. Perhaps we will come up with some ideas about how we can get the government there back on track. However, at the moment we simply have to accept that the government in power in Minsk has no policies, no transparency, no democracy and no concept of safety. For this reason, we can only call on the government to change. We cannot do any more.
We have a much better partnership with Russia. The subject of safety tests for nuclear power stations will play a central role in our discussions with our partners in Russia over the next few weeks. A question was asked about Kaliningrad. My message to the Members from the Baltic States and from Poland is as follows: we can only apply our strictest technical specifications to the nuclear power station which is being planned and which will be built in Kaliningrad if we allow the electricity from this power station to be sold on the European market.
However, if we do not accept the electricity and an electricity exchange is not possible, because we are planning our own nuclear power stations in the Baltic States, we will have less control over the technology used in Kaliningrad than if we had an open electricity market. I will be happy to have more in-depth discussions on this subject.
Finally, please believe me when I say that I will not allow a watered-down stress test to take place. However, please accept, on the other hand, the fact that the stress test does not include an automatic mechanism for shutting down a power station simply because you have not been successful with your programmes in your Member States.
This is currently a concern which I completely understand, but some Members also have prejudices. I would like to ask you not to judge any of the nuclear power stations and also not to judge me and my work until after the stress tests have been completed. That is my offer to everyone, including Mrs Harms and Mr Turmes, and I am prepared to take a critical and transparent approach to the next steps in the process.
Secondly, if we assume that the outcome of the stress tests will not be a placebo and that the seal of approval will not be handed out randomly, but instead that the tests will be constructive, critical and objective, then I believe that these stress tests will bring many benefits and that the alternative, not carrying out any stress tests, would be a worse solution.
We have had some tough negotiations. The first draft did not fulfil my requirements. However, the version that was signed largely meets the expectations of the citizens, who are legitimately concerned about high levels of safety in Europe. I would like to explain once again, Mr Turmes, that if I had not signed the revised and, in my opinion, positive version of the test criteria, we would now have nothing. As the saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
My second point is that you can expect me to be thorough and objective, but I have noticed a few things. One was the speech by a Member from the United Kingdom of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe whose party is part of the coalition government in the UK. This party was opposed to nuclear power before the elections and supported it afterwards and this is the person who is criticising my thoroughness when it comes to the stress tests. I can only say that this speech would have been more appropriate at the party conference in London than it was here in Strasbourg.
Another speech comes to mind. The Spanish Government did not give me any visible support on the subject of the thorough stress tests. For this reason, a speech by a Member who belongs to the party which is in government in Spain is also not very helpful.
That also applies to the group to which I belong, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). Some of the speeches made on behalf of the groups unfortunately demonstrate how unsuccessful the representatives of the groups have so far been within their own parties in their own home countries in achieving their objectives. In sporting terms, I am interested in what will appear on this subject in the election manifesto of the French socialist party. I am very interested in who the candidate will be and what the manifesto will look like. However, the Parliament here in Strasbourg cannot control matters which fall within the remit of the nation states."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples