Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-16-Speech-2-135"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991116.8.2-135"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, may I firstly say that I am sorry to hear that the Commissioner has a cold, which is hopefully real and not political, and that I hope he is soon feeling well enough to undertake the important trip that he would still like to go on this week. I would also like to thank the Commissioner for his report, particularly for his basic statement that there can be no compromise as far as nuclear safety is concerned. The Commissioner already made this quite clear at his hearing in the European Parliament, and it is a principle that must be observed. Perhaps this has not been so clear in some of the comments made in the debates of the last few weeks, but I would like to emphasise it and very much welcome the statement.
Today, this House has voted on Mr Chichester’s report, and in so doing has clearly indicated that it will reject any pressure or any form of indirect recommendation to change its policy on nuclear safety. On this understanding, we have voted by a large majority in favour of Mr Chichester’s report. Naturally, we must acknowledge that the opposite also applies. There is no pressure on any country to stop using atomic energy. However, it is absolutely essential – and on this point the words of the Commissioner were completely clear – that nuclear safety be pushed to the forefront, and I hope that this, as you yourself said, Commissioner, is used as the guideline and basis for the talks with our neighbours in Eastern Europe. The highest internationally recognised safety standard must indeed be the criterion.
In this respect, the decision as to whether nuclear safety is used as a criterion for the production of energy in a country lies with the national authorities. However, the decision on the safety standard goes beyond this, as it does not just concern the citizens of the particular country. In any event, there is now the belief that the countries want to and will apply strict safety standards for it is in their own interest. However, we all know that the reality is that this naturally depends on economic problems and the standard of living, and that we could in inverted commas afford to worry more about our national safety than some of our neighbouring countries could. It is for this reason that it is important and right that the European Union shows appropriate concern.
Naturally, what Mr Chichester has said applies in the general sense. Either the power stations are safe or they are unsafe. However, approaching the issues from a realistic point of view, we must grant countries time to adapt to the appropriate safety standards and not proceed according to a system of either closing them down immediately or allowing the reactors to run until the end of their operating life.
I would like to clarify just one point, which is clear to the Commissioner but which I believe must be clear to this Parliament. It is not the case that our concern about nuclear safety is really a hidden instrument to prevent expansion. But because it is perhaps sometimes perceived as such, I would like to state in plain and simple terms that in fact the opposite is the case. The sooner our neighbours recognise that nuclear safety is our common concern, the sooner it will be possible to enter into constructive and open talks with our neighbouring countries and to conclude talks on expansion.
If this common safety basis is also recognised on the part of our neighbours, then this possibility will become meaningful. The present issue is not therefore a question of, as it were, vetoing the talks if not everything is achieved before they begin. Nor is it a case of stubbornly sticking to closure plans decided upon unilaterally by different governments. Rather, it involves recognising that the decisions adopted by the governments can and indeed must be discussed.
In this regard, account must naturally be taken of the fact that the closure of nuclear power stations in various countries also leads to economic problems, affects energy provision, energy prices and export opportunities, and can obviously also lead to environmental problems if fossil-fuel power stations that are old and in poor condition are used. In this sense, I would also like to offer my clear support to what the Commissioner has said with regard to financial aid. If nuclear safety is to be our joint concern, we must also be jointly prepared to provide our neighbouring countries with financial aid if they recognise the appropriate standards.
In this respect, I am also very grateful for the donors’ conferences. It must be clear at these donors’ conferences whether not only the European Union as a whole but the Member States as well are prepared to provide money towards ensuring nuclear safety. We in the European Parliament support this, and want to help our neighbours so that they can re-equip their atomic power stations within the context of common safety."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples