Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-13-Speech-2-319"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-11-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Security of energy supply2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011113.12.2-319"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-11-13-Speech-2-3202
lpv:speaker	lp:James (Jim) Fitzsimons2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, we are all aware that the European Union is highly dependent on external energy sources and has very limited scope to influence energy supply conditions. That does not mean, however, that the European Union should not do more to promote the use of alternative energies and safer and cleaner energies. It must also play a leading role in ensuring that all the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol are implemented. The broader international community has not covered itself in glory in the efforts to ensure that the depletion of the ozone layer is stopped. This report refers to the fact that nuclear energy in Europe will be playing a less significant role, following the decisions by five Member States to phase out the use of nuclear energy in the future. It also states that no country in Europe is currently constructing new nuclear reactors. It would be greatly appreciated in Ireland if you would inform the British Government and BNFL of this fact. The British Government is currently planning the expansion, not a reduction, of nuclear activities at Sellafield. The MOX facility at Sellafield means more nuclear reprocessing, not less, and nobody in the British Government and BNFL can deny this. In Ireland we are sick and tired of BNFL breaching so-called high standards of regulation in their nuclear operations. We cannot easily forget that BNFL falsified documents in relation to nuclear reprocessing contracts with the Japanese Government. Where are the stringent standards of regulation, when you are dealing with a company that has falsified documents and has been shown time and time again to operate its affairs in this very slipshod manner? I believe that BNFL is technically insolvent. Its liabilities for cleaning up after the closure of nuclear plants and the disposal of nuclear waste will be up to GBP 34 billion, while it has GBP 235m worth of shareholders' funds on its balance sheet. What is the economic justification for the continuation of the Sellafield nuclear plant, let alone the expansion of its nuclear operations in the future? Are the British people fully aware of the extent of movements of nuclear materials by rail and sea in Britain? In Ireland we are very concerned about the security arrangements at Sellafield in the light of the terrorist attacks in America on 11 September. What assurances can the British Government give the people of Ireland that maximum security operates in the region? We know the type of devastation that would occur if a twin towers type attack were to take place at Sellafield."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-30--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2000-03-01--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries and the Gulf (1999-09-30--2002-01-14)3 member; PETI (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; UEN (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Fianna Fáil Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Fitzsimons (UEN )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph