Proposition 52K2502

Proposition de résolution relative au fonctionnement de l'Agence fédérale de Contrôle nucléaire.

General information ¶

Authors

Groen Tinne Van der Straeten
PS | SP Éric Thiébaut

Submission date

March 24, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

nuclear energy nuclear safety

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LDD FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Luc Sevenhans (VB) voted to adopt.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

April 29, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to refer to the written report.

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my presentation on my bench.

I would like to refer only to my statement contained in the committee report. However, given the current situation, I would like to clarify that it is surreal to schedule the present resolution. This is especially true because the resolution contains little information, as the majority parties have not reached consensus.

It is a good thing that, once the new Parliament has been installed after the elections, everything will be removed and therefore ⁇ still a solution will be found. I think in this regard, for example, of the affiliation between FANC and Bel V.

It is regrettable that, since there are a number of institutions in the sector concerned, we have not taken the example of these institutions in the resolution. Therefore, we remain behind with a little-significant resolution.

For the above reasons, our group will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Plasman, if you consider that the resolution is insignificant, it is unfortunately the fault of the MEPs, who ultimately made the text. If you think there is too little in the resolution, I would like to invite you to make a better version. In the committee, we could have discussed your text.

Our group has made a number of proposals. The insignificant nature of the resolution is there, because there was no outcome. It was mainly to the majority parties that there was no consensus on this issue.

You have not submitted any alternative text.

That is not correct. We have made a proposal.

You have not submitted a text proposal.

Our proposals are always wiped off the table.

That is not true. They talked about other points, but not about a text.

In any case, the resolution is the result of discussions in the Subcommittee on Nuclear Safety. It follows the resolution adopted by the House on 26 April 2007, which made a number of recommendations and identified a number of issues that should improve the operation of the Nuclear Agency.

In the following committee, which is ultimately the aforementioned subcommittee, we have therefore dealt with the same topics. The themes mentioned were the pain points in the previous resolution, which is not illogical. They are important cornerstones of nuclear security policy.

The present resolution repeated a number of elements recommended in the previous resolution. During the discussion, we checked each time and found that some recommendations were not followed or were given a different fulfillment than the one approved by the Chamber in 2007.

I would like to briefly address three important topics on this subject. There are three points that are still wrong.

First, the previous resolution stated that it was necessary to appoint two government commissioners as supervisors of the government. The aforementioned recommendation was not followed. A second government commissioner, as the supervisor of the Minister of Budget, should exercise control over the agency’s financial household. This recommendation is not insignificant, given the issues already raised, in particular the fact that there are financial reserves in the Agency for which no allocation has been drawn up.

Another important issue has already been cited by Ms. Plasman. It is about the affiliation and the role of the recognized institutions. Indeed, there is still a lot of uncertainty, controversy and uncertainty about that item. This is absolutely not good for the functioning of the Agency, and even less for the safety of nuclear facilities. This issue is also of particular importance for the operation and survival of the private firms that now operate as recognised institutions.

In addition, the entire discussion on federalization was further sharpened by the agency’s self-employed action in taking over part of the control tasks previously entrusted to Controlatom.

A third important issue is the large uncertainty regarding the scope of the Agency’s decision on the legal form given to the branch. The establishment of a public utility foundation remains in contradiction with the recommendation formulated by the House in its 2007 resolution. It clearly stated that the Chamber had a preference for a public law company.

Finally, the subcommittee focused on the actual performance of the control task that will be entrusted either to the Agency, to a branch or to a recognised institution. This is ultimately what it is about: safeguarding the safety of nuclear installations. In fact, it is less important who carries out the control or that that control meets the highest quality standards, regardless of whether the control is carried out by the outbuilder himself, who is ultimately responsible for the safety of the installation, or by the Agency or by the designated body. It is especially important that the person who performs the control has the right qualifications and the right conditions.

We therefore believe that the best solution would be that the King, in a decision consulted with the Council of Ministers, establishes the qualification and the conditions that the auditors must meet. Of course, those conditions and qualifications may vary depending on the installation to be inspected.

It would therefore be best, and in fact priority, that the royal decision concerning the classification of the installations into different classes, namely 1, 2a, 2b or 3, be adapted as soon as possible to the actual condition on the ground. This is something that the next government must do as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the colleagues for the work we have supported in the Subcommittee on Nuclear Safety, and Mr. Partyka for her presidency and the courage she has shown to hold a substantial presentation here.

I personally find it difficult to make a statement on the resolution on nuclear safety. That resolution came after the IRE incident two summers ago, after which the plenary session decided to resume the subcommittee. The subcommittee had to, on the one hand, keep an eye on the resolution of the previous legislature and examine how its follow-up occurred and, on the other hand, examine the incidents related to the IRE and the follow-up of the incident.

Our work in the committee has not been completed. We have just started working on the IRE incident in our subcommittee. There was a visit on the spot and a hearing. Further meetings would be followed.

The first part of the resolution on the FANC, the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control, has not been completed. A number of issues have not yet been addressed and would not be addressed definitively. We had agreed in the committee that we would subsequently draw up another text on those points. I think of the safety of the workers and of Telerad. Those points are still hanging.

The work is actually not completed. I could still get in that we discuss the text here today if the first part had been completed, but that is not the case. Mr. Schiltz, you don’t have to look so angry. I just make a determination, which we can only make together.

My group and myself have a little difficulty with it. Again, I understand the work delivered, but in fact it is half work. This makes it difficult for me. This is not an accusation to the colleagues, but simply a conclusion.

Another point is that in the committee we have not found a compromise on one of the most delicate points, the filialization. We have already talked about this. We have found a compromise, but we have not found out how to regulate federalization. We said in our committee that we would forward the point to the government and ask it to bow down on it and make a decision.

This was one of the main issues that we had to address, since it was indeed a follow-up to a 2007 resolution that had outlined a very general framework. The subcommittee then adopted a resolution and decided that all recognised institutions would be best affiliated. However, she could not look in a glass ball and say how it should be organized in practice. During our work, we have checked what has already been filialized and whether that should continue. We do not need to discuss this discussion. We have done this extensively in the committee.

Our conclusion in our text, which was a compromise, was to push it over to the government. The government is no longer there. You are right to refer to the next government. That is logical in the functioning of our institutions, but to me it feels like something we have begun but we have not been able to finish and where our recommendations to the government are not clear enough.

I repeat that I do not want to impair the work we have done. I only express my regret. I think that is also shared by some colleagues to some extent. Despite my appreciation for Mrs Partyka’s presentation, I do not feel called to address all points of the resolution.

My group will abstain. We hope for a successful government to reintroduce the theme of nuclear security in the next legislature, after 13 June.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the subcommittee explained things very technically and very well.

Colleagues, filialisation may seem strange to you. To be clear, it is about the organization of the safety chain, in other words the successive bodies and organizations and institutions that in our country must ensure that no nuclear accidents occur. It is a difficult sector. The reforms, to which Ms. Van der Straeten refers, are not carried out on one, two, three. We have to be careful not to step on political toes in this regard. Hence the compromise you are referring to, Mrs. Van der Straeten.

Mrs. Van der Straeten, when you say that the colleagues have worked well, but that it is half work, I find that sorry. We deliberately divided our work into two parts to get over with the first part. When you say that the delicate point is being pushed over to the government, I disagree. A resolution is intended to make recommendations to the government, to send it a direction, to ask it to do something. That is not to say that we submit a draft royal decree to the government and say that is what Parliament thinks, with the request to sign it now. No, with the text we have now outlined a framework that we can almost all agree on.

What Ms. Partyka said to Ms. Plasman was relevant: elements of sp.a, of Green and of Ecolo have also been taken into account. These are covered in the global package of elements and texts that we have discussed. When then my opposition colleagues tell me that half work is half work, then I still have a whole wash list of half work, with things that I would still like to put through the next year. There are still masses of energy work waiting for us, so of course it is half work. However, colleagues, if we respect our own work as parliamentarians, then we do not simply throw that time, that effort, that carefully obtained compromises into the trash, but we approve them today and make sure that they can be a beacon, a touchpoint for the next legislature, for the next Parliament and for the next government.

Mr. Speaker, I feel a little concerned. Mr. Schiltz suggests that I would have wanted to imply that half work falls on the work done, that this would only be half done. Half of the work can be taken literally. For the first part relating to the FANC resolution, we had agreed in the subcommittee that the points relating to the FANC would be further supplemented by points relating to the safety of workers and Telerad to name only two.

Second, to say something substantive, I consider that the resolution only very limitedly expands the framework and indicates the direction of filialization. The resolution actually says nothing in substance and does not even indicate the direction in which we see filialization. This is obvious, because we did not agree on this in the subcommittee. I can regret that. I also said in the committee on internal affairs, where we discussed this but where you were not present, that I regret this. The situation is what it is, we did not agree on it. It is said that in the resolution we really set out a direction and indicated what we thought were good elements. We did not do that, Mr Schiltz.

Mrs. Van der Straeten, I heard you right when you stood in front of the stage and said it was half work. I replicated that the work of course was not yet finished. Colleagues, however, I refuse to simply throw the work done into the rubbish because this government will fall prematurely and the Parliament will be dissolved prematurely. This would then happen under the amalgam of the crisis. What you say is not true, of course, only one part has been done and the other part had yet to come. The second part is, by chance, the part you attached more importance to. Mrs. Van der Straeten, you just had bad luck. I can only express it that way. This resolution is indeed rationalized. We all agreed that a number of malfunctions in the organization of the security chain had to be resolved. We also addressed them. Lady of the streets, you can’t get around that.