Mr President, the so-called nuclear package we are debating tonight was devised in response to the enlargement of the Union and in particular to the Green Paper on safety in energy supply. Enlargement brings into the Union a number of countries producing electricity through fission. The safety culture and the power stations in those countries differ from those in Western Europe. In addition, the technical criteria are at variance with those now common in the Europe of 15. Thanks to the accession process, the countries in question have met all the safety objectives required set for them. There is absolutely no need for concern on that score. Nonetheless, I would remind the House that nuclear power is not perceived simply in strictly technical, practical or scientific terms. It is perhaps unfortunate that the issue of nuclear power tends to be permeated by ideology and all too often by emotion. Consequently, it was absolutely essential for the Union to provide its citizens with a regulatory framework at European level in order to allay specific and well-founded fears. This nuclear package was devised to meet that need and we believe it does so effectively. One of the basic conclusions of the Green Paper is that all options for the future of energy in Europe must be kept open. Allow me to emphasise the use of the word all. It does of course cover the generation of electricity through nuclear fission. Due to the emotional factors I mentioned earlier it is extremely important to ensure that the establishment of a legally binding European regulatory framework guaranteeing nuclear safety becomes a common objective for the Union. This involves a common methodology and the necessary guarantees that any anomaly or incident will be dealt with by reference to the latest available technical developments. Such is the added value the nuclear package also provides for public opinion across the Union. There was considerable debate as to whether the nuclear package called for directives, or whether recommendations, guidelines or other weaker legal instruments would suffice. In my opinion, Mr President, recourse to weaker legal instruments would have rendered the whole exercise meaningless. What the citizens of Europe are insisting on is that their demand concerning the highest possible standards for these facilities be met. This can only be achieved through a legally binding instrument such as a directive. With reference to the two specific legislative initiatives considered, I can say that Parliament’s concerns have been appropriately recorded in our respective reports. I could mention the adjustment of the timetable concerning the creation of final storage sites for high-level waste. I could also mention avoidance of a situation in which European regulations were superimposed on national ones. Such duplication would have been inefficient. Further, efforts were made to ensure the public was fully informed and involved throughout the whole process. I should add that we believed it was essential for the directive on waste to leave open the option of further research in the future. Although storage in deep geological repositories in stable strata is currently the preferred option, the situation could change. Commissioner, this nuclear package certainly represents a step forward. Your approach to the difficulties arising has demonstrated how, although outwardly frozen, you actually have within you a bow of burning gold and the arrows of desire to take decisions. Lastly, the nuclear package demonstrates something further. It demonstrates that, as one of Spain’s greatest twentieth-century thinkers maintained, the solutions to problems it is difficult to solve at national level lie in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE