Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-14-Speech-4-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001214.4.4-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I will be brief but I would like to clarify once again some of the extremely important points that were raised in the debate. I was well aware, from reading the newspapers and listening to the radio and television, of the passions engendered by this important issue. Those feelings have understandably been reflected during this debate, but honourable Members know that in responding on behalf of my colleague, Commissioner Wallström, I have to restrict myself to setting out as clearly as I can what is and what is not Community competence: what we can do and what we cannot do. I just want to rehearse the arguments again so that we are all absolutely clear.
Commission competence under the terms of Chapter III, Health and Safety, of the Euratom Treaty covers the following issues which are relevant to this case. First, informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and the steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Second, the availability of an intervention plan to deal with various types of radiological emergency. Third, the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste. All these issues are being assessed further in detail by Commission officials. This competence enables the Commission to ensure that Member States first inform the public of potential risks and the steps that should be taken should a radiological emergency occur; and second, adequately control and supervise shipments of radioactive waste. Community competence, however much some people may wish it otherwise, does not extend to the classification of ports to carry out repair work on submarines, questions of technical safety of nuclear reactors and requirements on a submarine to be removed for repair elsewhere.
The honourable Member, Mrs Lambert, raised the question of cooperation between Member States and it is an important question. I want to make it clear that under Article 51, subsection 5 of the Euratom Basic Standards 96/29, cooperation is obligatory, and I quote: "each Member State shall, in the event of a radiological emergency occurring at an installation on its territory or being likely to have radiological consequences on its territory, establish relations to obtain cooperation with any other Member State or non-Member State which may be involved." An additional point which has been raised, it came up both before I spoke previously and since – an additional point in this context is the applicability of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty concerning the submission of general data relating to plans for the disposal of radioactive waste. The relevance of the Community competence in this case is frankly not clear. The general question of submissions of plans for nuclear-powered submarines is being studied by Commission officials. Community competence does not require general data to be submitted for the specific repair operation being undertaken.
Let me just say one other thing. I assume that if any Member State had any doubts at all about the way the Commission has handled its competence in this matter, it would have let us know.
Speaking, finally, not as a Commissioner but as a politician who was once also an environment minister, it seems to me that the important thing in cases like this is to make as much information public as possible. I would urge the British authorities to do exactly that. For its part, the Commission undertakes to keep honourable Members who have raised these important questions with us fully informed of developments in the coming weeks."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples