Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-12-Speech-1-118"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040112.8.1-118"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am sorry to hear that the Commissioner is ill this evening. I think her remarks addressed earlier to Mrs McNally were actually intended for me, but I am very happy to see that she is not symbolically sporting a headscarf in solidarity with Islamic fundamentalists. I would be appalled at that, but I am sure it is something she would never do.
Your proposals, Commissioner, are totally misleading. Whilst superficially proposing to increase nuclear safety, they hide their true purpose which is to revitalise a totally defunct nuclear industry. The nuclear package represents a coordinated effort to prepare for further development of atomic power in an enlarged European Union and it has been stripped of all meaningful safety requirements. It will receive no support from my Group. Commissioner, you may have bitten off more than you can chew, but that is for you to decide.
As an Irish MEP I would strongly urge non-nuclear countries like Ireland to take a stand against this nuclear package and I am sorry that it has not so far done this. I will be urging it to adopt such a position as this directive is not a first step in the right direction, but in fact a giant leap backwards. It is a recipe for a bureaucratic nightmare with zero safety gains.
Regarding safety, the draft directive claimed that it would introduce common safety standards, but this directive, as drafted, does not set out those safety standards. It only sets out basic obligations and general principles. In fact it calls for pre-arranged reviews of nuclear safety authorities, rather than a proper inspection of nuclear facilities, and that is clearly nonsense.
The current draft will not lead to an increase in nuclear safety in the EU or the accession countries, because all nuclear states in the EU and the accession countries are already parties to the International Atomic Energy Agency's Nuclear Safety Convention and must already report on the safety of nuclear power stations. Some inspectors think that it will actually have a negative effect.
On the particularly thorny question of reprocessing, we have high level waste that needs to be made safe much faster than is currently the case, and this processing should be continued.
Where is the justification for this directive? It is illogical given the huge variation in size of nuclear programmes. We need to exclude the exportation of waste and indeed, as has already been said, the timetable is way out of line with what the Member States can achieve. Think again, Commissioner. This is a bureaucratic nightmare and a nonsense."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples