Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-10-Speech-2-621-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110510.65.2-621-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, with regard to Chernobyl, I am happy to promise that your proposals and demands in relation to the issue of research, as well as other areas, will be examined by us and incorporated in the next steps. Likewise, we shall do all we can to finance the necessary technical measures in full within the international community with the involvement of the European Union.
After Thursday I will be more than happy to report back to you on what is to happen next. However, you must know that I need the approval of the European Commission – which I already have – and the national regulators – which I intend to obtain. I need to get approval for the test criteria of the stress tests from each national regulator, including our very competent and esteemed colleagues in Paris, London, Madrid and Brussels, where opinion is still inconclusive, although there is a feeling that there is little to be gained by taking matters to a European level.
I promise you transparency in this matter. We must learn the lesson of complete transparency from Chernobyl. I promise you transparency in relation to how negotiations proceed in Brussels on Wednesday evening and Thursday and what the result is. I will also tell you if we fail to reach an agreement between the Commission and ENSREG, at which point we may return the mandate to the European Council. You will not find my signature on an abbreviated version of the stress test.
I would like to express my general thanks for a very constructive discussion, including the question of what is to follow in the wake of Fukushima. Following this sitting we are scheduled to meet with the coordinators of the responsible parliamentary committees, where I will explain how things now stand.
Firstly let me point out that the stress test is uncharted territory for us. You are well aware of this. There has never been an inspection process for nuclear power plants at European level. I believe that this is already a significant fact that points to the way ahead.
My second point is that if one reads the Treaty of Lisbon, a document on which you all worked, then it is evident that the decision on the energy mix was and remains a matter for the Member States, in other words the countries where you live. For this reason, the decision in favour of coal, nuclear energy, gas or renewable energies is largely a matter for the Member States themselves. The 20% renewable energy requirement is the first time that we have had a European process that impacts on the decision in relation to the energy mix otherwise decided solely by the Member States themselves. We have 14 Member States that operate nuclear power plants and 13 Member States that do not. Poland, a very European country, is on the point of deciding on two nuclear power plants. In Italy, the search for suitable sites has been suspended.
You have suggested that I should put a European regulator in place. If that is what you want, then give me the legal competence to do so and approve the relevant jobs. I will accept everything you have to offer. However, I am bound by law and legislation. As yet we do not have a European nuclear watchdog. There is no provision for such a body either in the Treaty of Lisbon, the Euratom Treaty or in the establishment plan for the Commission. You know this as well as I do.
I think that the stress test is important. It has been commissioned by the European Council and is intended to set the highest standards for safety as its benchmark. The key meeting between the European regulators, ENSREG and the Commission is to take place on Thursday. As yet there are no test criteria, even though judgments have already been made – judgments that the stress tests are too soft, disappointing or inadequate. There have not been any stress tests yet. The test criteria will be drawn up on Thursday.
What we do have is a proposal from a body of which the Commission is not a member. In April, the Western European Nuclear Regulators Association published its preparatory work, which it was fully entitled to do. It is up to us to decide what to do with this. Without any involvement on the part of the Commission, WENRA applied its expertise and, following a circulation procedure, came up with a resolution that human error and human causes should not be included. I do not think this is adequate.
That is why I will present my position on behalf of the Commission tomorrow evening to all 27 nuclear watchdog bodies, based on thorough groundwork, telling them that we need to take all risks into consideration, regardless of their origin. This applies equally to natural causes, such as earthquakes, flooding or extreme temperatures, and human causes, such as error, accident, intent or criminality. As far as I am concerned this also includes terrorist threats, cyber attacks and plane crashes.
I believe that this is in the interests of the people of Europe. Today’s debate showed me that there is a broad interest among all parties in the European Parliament in this test and in the test criteria, which must include the human factor. I am grateful for this tailwind. By the way, it is not always easy to make a clear distinction: was Fukushima caused by nature or by human beings? I would claim it was originally a natural disaster – earthquake and flooding – however, human strengths and weaknesses came into play when it came to taking control of the risk and in reducing and avoiding damage. Human weaknesses have continued to play a role in Japan right up to the present."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples