Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-12-Speech-1-110"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040112.8.1-110"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you for your kind words, Mr President. I hope I shall survive this time and avoid catching yet another cold.
In this connection, there is scope for proposing an increase for research and development if necessary. I must emphasise we are not writing off other solutions. Quite the opposite is the case. Allow me to reiterate that we are in favour of further research in this field.
Mr President, by way of summary I should like to confirm the main objective of the Commission’s proposal. This is simply to guarantee the highest possible level of safety within an enlarged Europe. In addition to guaranteeing a high level of safety, we wish to make this whole issue more transparent for the citizens and especially for Parliament. We also wish to ensure that the nuclear sector tackles the problem of managing radioactive waste. We hope the various Member States will make a determined effort in this regard.
I must emphasise that implementation of this Community legislation will result in stable and balanced general rules for the European Community sector. Such rules will allow the sector to develop without any part of it being favoured or discriminated against. I think I should mention how pleasing it is to note that the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission are cooperating to endow the enlarged Union with a genuine Community policy on nuclear safety. Such policies already exist for other areas. As I recalled when presenting these initiatives, in the past the Commission tabled proposals on issues such as acceptable levels for bathing waters in the European Union. Parliament and the Council adopted these proposals. There is nothing currently laid down on European levels in this area, however.
With your permission, Mr President, I should like to respond to a point made by Mrs McNally at the start of this sitting. I must point out again to Mrs McNally that it was another honourable Member of this House who declared the Kyoto Protocol dead. I never said so. What I have actually said and will now reiterate is as follows. Unfortunately, it is very likely that the Protocol will not gain the number of ratifications needed for it to come into force. That is something different. Others arrived at different conclusions, not I. I stated that it is important to continue working on the objective of the Kyoto Protocol. I would like to emphasise this again today. It is vital to keep working on the reduction of greenhouse gases. We have to maintain our commitments. That is something quite different. The objective must be pursued.
I should also like to reiterate that if it did unfortunately come to pass that the required appropriate signatures and ratifications were not forthcoming and the Kyoto Protocol did not come into force, the Community would need to reconsider. Sadly, such a scenario could come about, as it seems certain countries such as the United States, Australia and possibly others might not lend their support. This could be because of the statements made recently in Russia. The Union would then have to consider whether the measures adopted to date are those best suited to obtaining the desired outcome, namely the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It might prove necessary to consider other possibilities. This is what I stated. I put this forward and stand by it. I think it is entirely reasonable. Regrettably, it is also entirely reasonable to believe that the acceleration of climate change is linked to the very harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions. That link has actually been scientifically proven.
Europe must therefore continue to take the lead. It must continue to fight and work for an effective, real and adequate reduction of these emissions. It is important to bear in mind that Europe is only one small part of a world it shares with many other countries. Unfortunately, forecasts suggest that Europe will not be the source of future dramatic increases in greenhouse gas emissions at global level. Other countries will be responsible for the rise. Nonetheless, there is a positive side to this. Those countries will become more developed than they now are. They will therefore no longer be classed as developing countries. They will be deemed to be fully developed. That is something we should all encourage and look forward to.
Turning to more serious issues, I should like to thank Parliament, especially the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. Particular thanks are due to the two rapporteurs, Mr Seppänen and Mr Vidal-Quadras. I appreciate all the work undertaken jointly and welcome the results achieved. I believe the latter are very reasonable as regards the Commission’s drafts for a directive concerning safety at nuclear facilities, the management of spent fuel and the management of radioactive waste.
The determination to contribute to the setting up of a Community approach to nuclear safety has been abundantly clear both at discussions at the Commission and at the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Nuclear safety was understood in its broadest sense, encompassing both the safety of facilities and the management of waste.
Parliament’s ruling will of course complement the Commission’s proposal and provide additional food for thought. In addition, it will provide significant political support. It should be borne in mind that difficulties have arisen at Council regarding several Member States, and such support would be helpful.
It is particularly important for Parliament to support the Commission’s initiative concerning the use of legally binding instruments to provide a framework for nuclear safety and the management of nuclear waste in the future enlarged Europe of 25 Member States. This approach is the only way of putting in place clear and stable general legal rules. Such rules will guarantee future prospects for investments in electricity companies. They will also have the effect of informing and reassuring public opinion about the conditions in which nuclear energy is used within the European Union.
I shall now turn to the draft directive laying down the basic duties and general principles regarding the safety of nuclear facilities. The Commission has complied with Parliament’s request that nuclear safety be guaranteed during the decommissioning process also. This is a sensitive issue. It involves both concerns for nuclear safety and the desire for fair competition in the electricity market.
The Euratom Treaty constitutes the legal basis for the Commission’s proposal. This proposal allows Parliament’s expectations to be met in a balanced manner. Parliament’s amendments have been studied. In particular, it emerges quite clearly that the ruling to be forwarded to the Council will make it possible to counter any attempt by Member States to change the substance of the Commission’s initial proposals. The Commission is willing to show some flexibility. It is not, however, prepared to sacrifice the political objectives set when drafting the proposals. We therefore believe it is essential to ensure sufficient financial resources are available to ensure decommissioning takes place safely.
I shall now turn to the draft directive on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. I have taken careful note of the proposals to amend the timetable for approving permanent storage facilities and their entry into use. Initial discussion in the Council suggests the latter is favourably inclined to this idea. Clearly, both sides are of the opinion that the timetable put forward by the Commission is over-ambitious. Personally, I still believe the difficulty does not lie with the dates themselves. The difficulty is that most Member States have not made sufficient progress with their decisions and preparations. I would not like to suggest that this applies to Finland, however. Finland is very much in the lead, and has taken specific decisions. Sweden has made a great deal of progress too. Returning to the timetable, the Commission is prepared to be flexible if specific and reasonable time periods are suggested. This is actually in line with Parliament’s proposal, namely to allow more time but to set specific dates. We are prepared to allow flexibility in such circumstances.
There is international consensus at technical level on the final storage of high-level and long-life radioactive waste in deep geological repositories. All are agreed that at present this is the best method of isolating radioactive waste from human beings and from the environment for the long periods necessary. This does not of course mean that other solutions are not being researched. The Commission does not wish to close any doors. The fact that deep geological repositories are currently the best solution does not necessarily mean they will be the best solution ten years from now. We are inspired solely by our desire to ensure safe management of radioactive waste in the long term. Our aim is to provide effective protection for our citizens."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples