Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-22-Speech-1-194"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071022.17.1-194"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, as was mentioned, this is the third report on the Commission decision and the later decision of the European Council. The Vidal-Quadras report has helped us formulate the internal market package. The Thomsen report will have a huge influence on our proposals on renewables. I can also promise that we will follow the vote on the Reul report very carefully, because the outcome of that report will influence the approach to CCS – first of all the legal proposal and also the report – and also our Strategic Energy Technology Plan and our future policy, as far as the Euratom Treaty gives us a mandate for nuclear energy. That is why this vote will be very carefully followed by the Commission.
On the issue of coming here to talk about the closure of some of the nuclear units, a debate on this issue would not be productive. This issue was agreed by the experts who prepared the ground. It was discussed at a political level and it was agreed at government level and sealed by a referendum in all the Member States, including the countries where these reactors are. Please do not return to this, because it distracts us from future developments. There is no way these reactors will get the green light for prolonging their work time. This is a dead end. Please understand that there will be no development.
I know, perhaps, you have personal views on it, but there will definitely not be developed, at least from the European Commission. The opinion has been formed. It was democratically agreed, and let us keep and honour the commitment.
I greatly appreciate the report that has been drawn up. It is a very difficult report and I believe it has got the accent right. I hope that the vote will definitely help us finalise the paper that we are to prepare by the end of the year.
At the same time I would like to emphasise a couple of points. It was mentioned that we need to modernise the energy sector. If I recall – now, in 2007 – the first debate in 2004, I believe we have achieved a lot. Definitely, security of supply and climate change are closely related, with perhaps just one major difference at this stage, which is the cost for carbon sequestration, but I believe oil price developments will help.
At the same time, weather challenges were mentioned. We do not invest in sufficient resources. We should really decide on priorities. Without massive investment in research and development in the energy sector, we will not succeed. I believe the three-year debate was very helpful to prepare the ground. But now it is really time to address the issues. How can one claim, for example, that some Member States are dependent on third countries when the Structural Funds are not being used for energy at all, or practically not at all!
I would say also the part in national budgets for research and development is small. So these are the crucial issues to deal with. I am afraid that not much time is left until we have some serious perturbation in the market. So, we need to act, and to act now, on the basis on which Parliament has worked so far.
There was also mention of one particular issue: that we need sufficient energy resources. Sufficient resources need energy demand management. Here again, Parliament has moved and the Commission has moved, and at the same time I needed to start 12 infringement cases for not communicating energy efficiency action plans, the basis for action on energy demand.
With regard to demand and dependence on third countries, this is also something that we should overcome. I think the Saryusz-Wolski report was a courageous attempt to go for it. If one Member State is being blackmailed by a supplier, it should speak out. Because the basic reason is that we have a common foreign and security policy (CFSP) that could give the necessary grounds for common action, and I believe that any country that has enough courage to blackmail any of the EU countries will think twice, or never again blackmail, if this is spoken of and discussed in the Council.
The last part of my intervention will be on nuclear energy. It is very clear that, under the Reform Treaty, the energy mix comes under national decision-making. That means that the decision on nuclear energy is to be made by each and every Member State. But it should also be understood that conditions now definitely demand that the legislation in place should guarantee transparency and predictability, because it is a very long-term investment.
Mr Swoboda also mentioned non-proliferation issues. We are looking at these, but in my opinion, it is very clear that the CFSP has priority and Euratom should fill in and help. It is definitely the CFSP that should lead our activities on non-proliferation.
Two very concrete responses. First of all, Mochovce. Slovenské Elektrárne has indeed notified its intention to construct a nuclear power plant. It is for a VVR reactor 440/213 but it is not of the Chernobyl type. The Commission, in accordance with Article 41 of the Euratom Treaty, will prepare an opinion, taking full account of all the challenges this decision poses. This will take time, but you can be assured that the Commission will perform the correct assessment and will not hesitate if we have any doubts about the safety of this equipment."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples