Proposition 53K1405

Proposition de résolution relative aux modalités des stress tests et leurs conséquences sur les installations nucléaires.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Leen Dierick
Ecolo Olivier Deleuze
Groen Kristof Calvo
LE Catherine Fonck
MR David Clarinval, Denis Ducarme, Jacqueline Galant
N-VA Bert Wollants
Open Vld Willem-Frederik Schiltz
PS | SP Éric Thiébaut
Vooruit Karin Temmerman, Peter Vanvelthoven

Submission date

April 26, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European Union nuclear power station nuclear energy resolution of parliament nuclear safety

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo

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 ¶

June 16, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Temmerman and I refer to our written report.

When it comes to nuclear energy, we always have huge discussions in the House. However, if there is one thing we agree on, it is the fact that if it is the nuclear power plants that supply electricity to our ⁇ and our families, they must be able to produce it in a safe way.

For this reason, once questions were asked here about the stress tests, we said that we are a strong supporter of such tests. After all, the application of nuclear energy is only possible provided that the highest possible level of safety is achieved. This is how we want to use stress tests to effectively ensure that the desired level of safety can be reached and controlled.

This is not a discussion about whether or not to extend the life of our nuclear power plants. That is not the intention. However, it must also be clear that the opposite is not the intention either. We will not use the stress tests to avoid the discussion of whether or not to extend or to make, as we have already said last time, the debate for a number of power plants impossible. That is not the intention either. Many members in this Parliament have effectively cited that this may not be the intention, although in the meantime, through the ministry’s statements, we come to the conclusion that he is already slightly further in this matter, which is partly our fear. He later explained to us that it was about statements to the ABVV or, as he called it, a conversation between comrades.

I’m not very confident that this is just a conversation between comrades. What reassures me is that the FANC has meanwhile informed that the necessary investigations, tests and studies are being prepared to determine how nuclear power plants can stay open longer. With this point we can move on, once we have held the specific discussion about the stress tests and have the tests also performed.

Whatever the FANC has done and what is a good step is that it has specifically anticipated the discussions that we would have here in Parliament. After all, it made a proposal on how such a Belgian stress test could look like. Thus, we have received a lot of substance, which has enabled us to conduct the discussion in question in a good and thorough manner.

The result is the resolution that is now ahead and which has been amended by a number of MEPs, who have adopted the resolution of Mr. Deleuze and Mr. Calvo.

In this way, we actually come to a realistic stress test, a stress test that we can effectively use for what we need it, in particular to guarantee the level of safety.

I have also heard many other proposals in the committee. Although it was not explicitly stated that it was ⁇ not a debate about the nuclear withdrawal, it was always referred to the debate. I have heard proposals that would make the debate a bit more difficult, and I have even heard proposals to make nuclear energy a municipal election topic. In part, I can understand that the federal level may not be the level at which things are best regulated. I see Mr. Calvo laughing. He clearly agrees with me. Whether he thinks entirely in a confederate context, I don’t know, but we might talk about it later.

Colleagues, what is now coming forward is, in our opinion, a good and balanced proposal that we should take action on. Based on this, we should be able to see how our nuclear power plants are currently doing and whether they effectively meet the safety level. If this is not the case, we must be able to make the necessary investments to ensure that this is the case. If the power plants cannot meet the safety level, unless with unreasonably high costs, then they must be closed. It is clearly a stepped-down system, where our primary intention is to ensure the level of security and to ensure that the power plants can remain open at this time, in such a way that we can start the debate about the extension.

I think this is a good proposal that is approved by most political parties. It may be in the eyes of some a light version, but I can only find that the version of Ecolo-Green! It would be too heavy on my stomach.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, Dear Colleagues, the severe nuclear crisis that Japan has experienced for more than three months has revived worldwide fears and debates aroused by the production of nuclear energy.

We need to understand and accept the questions that cross our populations. Today, citizens ask us for guarantees, representatives of the Nation must respond to these interpellations, not by denying the risks inherent in the atom, but by ensuring transparency on the potential risks and working to minimize them to the maximum.

As such, I would like to welcome the action of the Belgian government in the days following the first incidents in Fukushima. The Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Energy were at the initiative by bringing to the European level the plan to organize new resistance tests in all power plants in the European Union.

With the support of the European Commissioner for Energy and other Member States, such as Germany and Austria, our country has played a driving role in the European dynamic for greater coordination in the field of nuclear safety. It is sufficient to cite the examples of the power plants of Chooz, Gravelines and Borsele, located at our borders, to understand that European nuclear safety coordination meets the most fundamental interests of our people and our environment.

In order to deepen cooperation and joint surveillance at European level, we first supported the stress test project. In this regard, I would like to welcome the agreement reached on Tuesday between the Prime Minister and his French counterpart. It was agreed to practice common transparency and exchange expertise on resistance tests. This is perfectly consistent with the will expressed by the deputies of the Nuclear Security Subcommittee. I would like to congratulate the government for its quick action.

The organization of additional tests also aims to provide answers to our population that demands renewed guarantees in the field of nuclear safety. Fukushima reminded us with pain that the unlikely is always possible. The science of nuclear safety, like so many other technical subjects, must feed on its mistakes.

In the future, we will have to take lessons from the Japanese events. This will ⁇ take years. However, we do not have to wait for this return of experiments to raise our level of requirements to our nuclear installations.

It is necessary in the short term to re-evaluate the safety margins of our facilities in the light of the events that took place in Japan. For this purpose, the European specification specifies that large nuclear installations will be subject to comprehensive scenarios for testing all elements that could lead to a loss of cooling systems. This is exactly what was missing in Fukushima.

The PS Group supports this broad vision of additional resistance testing. We welcome the decision of the Council of the European Union on 10 June last year and the resolution we will vote today is in accordance with the prescriptions of the European institutions and wants to be even more precise and more demanding.

As a committee, we have defended from the beginning a series of guidelines that are found in the final text – and we welcome that. First, we asked that the tests be exhaustive. As stipulated in the resolution, the AFCN will have to test all Class I establishments. These are, therefore, power plants but also large nuclear facilities such as the IRE in Fleurus. The security authority will not only study the impact of extreme weather events such as storms, floods and severe droughts, but will also analyze the resistance of these facilities to a whole range of critical situations such as terrorist attacks, plane crashes and hacking.

On these last elements, I would like to emphasize that our country goes further than the European decision. The debate on the inclusion of terrorist scenarios in the tests is not yet finished in the European institutions. I hope that in the coming weeks diplomacy will bear fruit and that other Member States will adopt our level of ambition.

We also requested that the results of resistance tests be made as transparent as possible. The Chernobyl accident and its consequences on the peoples of Europe will remain in the collective memory as a terrible illustration of the culture of secrecy and opacity that then reigned in the nuclear environment. The times have changed, fortunately. Operators and public authorities understood that they could no longer act in a closed vase. People have also taken advantage of their right to information and now rightly demand more transparency on the potential risks of nuclear energy.

At the end of the tests, therefore, it will be necessary that the public and Parliament can dispose in full transparency of all the conclusions of the analyses carried out. Of course, as provided by the document classification legislation, no information should be disseminated that could fall into the hands of malicious persons, compromising the safety of the facilities. Beyond these limited exceptions, transparency could be total.

I would like to highlight one last principle that we have defended and which is found in the final text of the resolution, namely the binding nature of the results of resistance tests. Upon completion of the tests, the AFCN will be able to demand all measures and investments it deems necessary to ensure the highest level of security and security. In this context, if an installation should be considered structurally and definitively unsafe for workers, for the population or for the environment, it should not be hesitated to close it.

The level that a country accepts to take to ensure its social development and economic prosperity is a fundamentally political issue. I therefore look forward to the constructive work carried out by the Nuclear Safety Subcommittee and the Home Affairs Committee to lead today to the vote on this ambitious resolution.

I am sorry, however, that the Ecolo-Groen group! He did not wish to participate in this negotiation process and did not support an amendment adopted, however, by all the democratic parties in committee.

The [...]

You are obviously the only concerned about nuclear security in this parliament!

We can always demand more, and in terms of nuclear security, we must be uncompromising. However, it is not correct to suggest that our country’s nuclear security security authority, the government and all other democratic parties would be laxist or worse, complacent towards nuclear operators.

We place the safety of people, workers and the environment above everything else. But we also know that our approach is part of a broader process, which must take into account the European negotiation and the framework that has been assigned to the stress tests which, let us recall, must still be carried out by the end of September.

The resolution we vote today is not intended to define the nuclear safety policy as a whole or the attitude to be adopted with regard to the extension of power plants. This act has as its sole purpose to establish the level of requirement that the House requires for stress tests. We must also have the humility to be content with it.

In view of the time constraint and the framework set by the European bodies, we have collectively succeeded, dear colleagues, in establishing the highest possible level of requirement for these resistance tests.

Let us now let the Federal Nuclear Control Agency work in serenity!

Mr. Speaker, in terms of stress tests, our group is pleased to see today the result of this text in several ways.

1 of 1. The quality of the stress tests in Belgium will be higher than the common criteria established at the European level, the character of terrorist threat being clearly taken into account in our text.

2 of 2. The MR bill, signed in particular by our colleague Denis Ducarme, has also been fully integrated into the final text, on the one hand, and in the government decision, on the other. It was aimed at extending to Class I organizations, such as IRE, CEN and others. This request has been fully integrated into the final text.

3 of 3. Particular attention will also be paid to the French and Dutch power plants that are located at the gates of our country. I am pleased in this regard that Prime Minister Leterme and Prime Minister Fillon have reached an agreement on this subject before yesterday. As a person, residing less than 20 kilometers from the Chooz power plant, I ⁇ wanted this agreement to be formalized.

4 of 4. Maximum transparency regarding the results, ranging, if necessary, up to the closure of an installation whose safety would be considered structurally and definitively insufficient.

Here are four reasons for satisfaction.

Before concluding, I would like to thank all the colleagues who participated constructively in this debate, and in particular colleagues sp.a for their attitude during the debate on the socio-economic study. In this regard, our group believes that this study may take place but not as part of stress tests and in a budget-neutral manner. That is why we supported the amendment.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, the discussion on the stress tests has come mainly following the dramatic events in Japan. These events, of course, do not affect the fact that we set safety requirements in our nuclear facilities. We want our nuclear installations to meet the highest possible safety standards. The development of stress tests actually builds on that safety idea. In this regard, it is good that such stress tests are established in the European context.

Our country has taken the position from the outset that human-made events should also be included in such tests. Fortunately, the chance of a tsunami in Belgium is very small. Human factors, on the other hand, can pose a threat, which is much more realistic. It is therefore good that the stress tests to which our installations are subjected charge these factors.

CD&V is also pleased that the resolution aims to make the stress tests applicable to all Class 1 installations in our country. There is also the possibility of a nuclear incident. In addition, they are often located in densely populated areas. It is therefore good that more security and security can also be provided for those surrounding residents.

We are also pleased to hear that the French authorities have already committed their cooperation for the power plants in their country in order to organize joint controls. After all, an incident in these power plants could have a huge impact on our population. We are, therefore, very pleased that the government has already achieved results in this regard and is advancing the resolution.

Mr. Minister, you clearly illustrated the effects of the stress tests and they were also included in the text of the resolution. The stress test can result in four possible results: the installation meets the test and can remain operational, the installation meets after adjustments and can still remain operational during the execution of those adjustments, the installation meets after adjustments but must be suspended while waiting for the execution of those works or the installation meets not and can also be stopped from operating after adjustments.

That the results of the stress test should be communicated in the greatest possible openness, we also find a very good thing. The public has the right to be informed on these points. However, the resolution provides that the sensitivity of certain information should be taken into account. Not all members of the committee agreed on this point. We believe that this is a logical consequence of the law on safety authorisations. Protection of certain information about nuclear installations and their technical aspects. In our view, it would be ⁇ risky to break that safety circle and bring people who are not so good at our society to misconceptions.

One element that was not held in the final text is the conduct of a socio-economic analysis of a nuclear accident for our country.

We did not find that a good idea. First of all, this does not fit within the framework of the stress test. The stress test will be carried out by the FANC. However, the Agency does not have the expertise and the resources to carry out such an analysis. Moreover, such an analysis would unnecessarily delay the results of the stress test, which we absolutely do not want.

We welcome the good operation and the implementation of the resolution. CD&V will support them.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why sp.a submitted a proposal for a resolution concerning the stress test a few weeks ago simply had to do with the fact that what we heard from WENRA was very minimal. Other groups also submitted proposals for resolutions.

In the course of the discussions in the subcommittee, then once with and then once without the government, we have successfully succeeded in getting the government and thus Belgium on a certain path. Today, there is a large consensus on what should happen with the stress tests and where that should go.

When I look back on what has happened in the last few weeks today, I can only conclude that almost our entire resolution has now become a reality. Therefore, the government has explicitly adopted many of those elements.

The stress tests will take place not only in nuclear power plants, but in all nuclear installations in our country. The criteria are also much wider than initially planned. It’s not just about natural disasters, but also about aircraft crashes, terrorism and human failure. This is also included in the stress test.

It is also very important for our group that consequences are linked to the results of the stress tests.

If testing could lead to the conclusion that some of our power plants and installations no longer meet today’s safety standards, the consequences should be linked. This is also stated with so many words in the resolution.

In short, we are satisfied with the trajectory that has taken place over the last few weeks. I may be able to say that the resolution that is forthcoming for adoption today is actually largely outdated, because what we ask the government is already in part what the government has promised us in this Parliament.

There is one point that we did not agree on in the committee. I would like to talk about that for a moment. The SPAA group considers that the risk of a nuclear disaster is not only the purely technical and scientific criteria to which a nuclear power plant or nuclear installation must meet, but other elements should be examined.

We call that the socio-economic conditions, the social impact if a nuclear disaster would indeed happen. Are we ready today, if anything happens in Doel, to evacuate the entire region? Shouldn’t we even investigate this? Can we at a certain moment, should there be a disaster, simply close a zone of 20 to 30 kilometers around the central area for decades, declare inaccessible to humans and animals? What is the consequence? What is the economic impact on our country? We believe that these matters should also be investigated in any case.

During the discussion in the committee it has been revealed that some groups are involved, other groups such as the PS are very divided on this, and other groups such as Open Vld there are ready and clear that it should not be for them. Some factions, I look at CD&V, N-VA and Vlaams Belang, come a bit with the explanation that it does not fit in the discussion we are talking about now, that it does not fit in the discussion about the stress tests.

Okay, that is an explanation. Therefore, the day after this was discussed in the committee, we prepared a new resolution in which, apart from those stress tests, we say that this should also be examined, that this too is important in the light of safety, which people still look at the government.

To all those groups that have said that it does not fit in the resolution we discussed today, we then asked whether they are willing to sign the new resolution that wants to examine another element, another security element, another security risk.

Until today I have had a response from Open Vld with the message that it doesn’t interest them. I have a response from Ecolo-Green! They want to sign it and have done it in the meantime. The MR group has also signed. I look at the other groups. The signature is not in today. I am still waiting...

Can we sign that too?

You sign for other reasons, but you have said in the committee that you do not agree with it. As for linearity, this can be counted from the Flemish Interest Faction.

There are two possibilities. Or we do it very simply today and we talk about it honestly. That is why we have submitted that amendment again. With regard to the stress test, we agree on the width of the room what should be there, how strict it should be, what consequences should be. That other element, the socio-economic consequences, must also be addressed here in Parliament. This also relates to the security that people are entitled to.

Therefore, you will soon have the opportunity to support that amendment that we are submitting again. Again, that should be for us after the stress test, no problem. This should not be done by the FANC. All we ask is that the government investigate which agency could conduct widespread socio-economic research. That is the minimum that the government can ask for. I ask the groups that made a reservation last time to support that amendment today. You are only doing a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Flemish Interest Group, I would like to highlight a number of elements relating to the resolution on European stress tests for nuclear installations.

The cause is known to all of us. The accident at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, in March 2011 led the European countries to decide to undergo stress tests on all 143 nuclear power plants in Europe. It is, of course, the exploitant or holder of the exploitation permit of the nuclear installation that remains primarily responsible for the nuclear safety of its installation. He is also charged with performing a stress test.

The supervisory authority, which is the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control, is entitled to assist the operator in doing so, as well as to independently assess the results of the stress test, in consultation with the supervisory authorities in the surrounding countries, even if it was only due to the proximity of the Borssele nuclear power plant in the Netherlands and the Gravelines and Chooz nuclear power plants in France.

Colleagues, I would like to point out that the stress test is a complement to the existing national safety standards. The aim of the stress test is to learn from what happened in Japan and thus prevent such an accident from happening in Europe. The stress test specifically looks at extraordinary events, such as earthquakes and floods, but also looks at the consequences of other events that can lead to the loss of multiple safety functions and as such to a serious accident. This could be a serious disruption of the electricity grid, an aircraft crash or a terrorist attack.

The stress tests should lead to a better understanding of serious accident conditions and how a nuclear facility reacts to them, even if emergency measures fail in a particular situation. The aim should therefore be to determine how nuclear installations and the safety management system respond and to what level of threat the safety system functions adequately. It should therefore be intended to examine the extent to which the current safety margin needs to be adjusted. When it comes to evaluating the results of the stress tests and taking further action, it is obvious that it is important to know how likely such an event is to occur.

If a nuclear installation fails to pass the stress test, if I can express myself in those terms, then it is of course that the exploiter must take measures, which may also include that a power plant can be temporarily or permanently shut down.

We don’t have to blow winds there. I would immediately add that so far there is no evidence that the safety of one of our seven nuclear power plants is at stake. After all, the power plants are always adapted to the latest state of technology.

A stress test is therefore a one-off date, while the safety of the nuclear power plants must, for obvious reasons, always, every second of the day, be guaranteed. In order to increase the reliability and accountability of the entire process of carrying out the stress tests, it is necessary not only to agree on a methodology of reporting, but it is also necessary to communicate the final reports with the results in all openness. That transparency is important because the involvement of the public contributes to the acceptance and the usefulness of performing the stress tests.

Since all these elements are part of this proposal for a resolution, the Flemish Interest Group will support the resolution. I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Minister of Energy, Mrs. Minister of Internal Affairs, the so-called engines of the stress tests at European level can unfortunately not be present today.

We have had an interesting discussion in the Nuclear Security Subcommittee and in the Home Affairs Committee. We have gone a good way since we submitted this proposal for a resolution some time ago on the criteria for European safety tests, the elements that can be added to them and the path that can be followed.

Despite this path that we have taken, partly together, it is not unimportant to remember what caused the stress tests. There was a terrible nuclear incident on March 11, 2011 in Fukushima, which experts today say will take at least until 2012 to get it completely under control. There is too high radiation in the area, in a radius of more than 50 kilometers.

Damage of 100 billion euros. The second INES 7 incident that we unfortunately have been able to record after the terrible accident in Chernobyl. Three meltdowns in three Japanese reactors. Colleagues, I am reminding you of these figures today because I feel that in this Parliament, as well as in other forums, the great forgetting has already begun. Fukushima has been swept away in the newspapers and the attention curve of politicians is now declining again.

I note that negotiations at European level have been under way for almost three months on what those stress tests should finally mean. Under pressure from the most pro-nuclear country, France, the criteria at European level are being broken out. Not Belgium, but Germany, Austria and the European Commission stand on the European barricade for a real test.

When I see how laconically the discussion in the committee for domestic affairs has gone, I notice that the big forgetting has begun. I’ve heard a colleague say that if we scale the socio-economic impact of an incident, we better close the nuclear power plants right away. I have heard another colleague say that he is not an engineer and therefore cannot judge the safety of nuclear power plants. I have heard another colleague say that we should not make those tests too ambitious because the FANC already has so much work. In this context, I think of the research reactor MYRRHA and the request of Mr. Wollants to examine how to keep the power plants open longer. This test should not be too ambitious.

These are statements made ten days ago in the committee for internal affairs, two and a half months after the terrible events in Fukushima.

Colleagues, this resolution, this parliamentary debate is the first opportunity we as MPs have to show that we have understood the lessons of Fukushima correctly. It is the first concrete initiative that this Parliament can put forward after the many statements made by members of Parliament and ministers.

The question I want to address today and answer with you is not, Mr. Wollants, whether or not we should continue with nuclear energy. This debate will probably come up. You know our position in it. The answer I am looking for today is the answer to the question whether we as Belgian politicians have understood the lessons of Fukushima correctly. Is this resolution credible? Can we look right in the eyes of our people and demonstrate that we have understood that another era has arrived, a post-Fukushima era?

The answer to this question is for the time being “no” with this resolution. That is why the Ecolo-Green group! We will vote against the proposal.

That is regrettable.

This is indeed very regrettable. But you should not do it for my beautiful eyes, Mr. Jambon. There are other reasons to vote for a more ambitious test. I will explain it to you immediately.

Colleagues, I will not deny that some steps have been taken, in my opinion, under the pressure of a number of proposals in this Parliament. Indeed, the European compromise added the criterion “aircraft crash” and after the proposal of several MPs it was indeed decided to include the sites of Mol-Dessel and Fleurus in the stress test; for this a similar test is being developed. In the meantime, it was also agreed that we will cooperate with the Dutch and French security authorities for the power plants at a stone’s foot of our country. So, there have been steps taken, but not enough for us.

This is a resolution that testifies to a parliament that is afraid of its own shadow. This is not the case when it comes to other files, such as asylum and migration, but in the energy dossier, although a number of colleagues proposed several weeks ago to set up a working group that would illuminate the entire energy policy. This resolution is a product of another parliament that does not want to be proactive and is not ambitious.

For us, there are at least five reasons for not approving this compromise proposal. First, in the stress test procedure, the operator Electrabel and the regulator, the FANC, have played a far too large role. In a first phase, operators will formulate responses to questions from the FANC based on existing studies, therefore no additional studies. Until recently, the FANC was also authorized to screen the safety. Will the FANC be inclined to update its own recent analysis now? This is a question to which I do not yet know the answer, but it is a major concern.

Only in a third phase will other experts, not FANC employees, ensure an evaluation of the questionnaire and the answers.

So that happens only in a final phase, the third phase, not by independent international experts, but by the other national regulators, the regulators with whom the FANC shares the table with WENRA and ENSREG, the club where there is often a very strong connection to the nuclear sector, Ms. Fonck.

Mr. Calvo, I do not want to interrupt you or restart the debate we have had in the committee. I would have wanted you to clarify your point. Did you mean that the AFCN does not have the required skills? Or, to say it a little more plainly, do you consider that manicots work there? If that was the meaning of your words, I cannot follow you in any way.

Mrs. Fonck, a lot of colleagues follow you in this, but I don’t.

The Ecological Green Party! has long advocated for a strong, independent audit agency. I am convinced that in recent years, steps have also been taken in this direction. However, I think it is not ideal, that it is suboptimal, that just those persons who were also authorized for those checks in recent years, today will perform those checks again. They must control their colleagues, with whom they share the table and with whom they share a history in the sector. There are colleagues who, for example, about the National Bank, have said in the interest rate debate that they would not backflow themselves anyway. Could that reasoning, possibly, very unlikely, ⁇ not even appear before the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control? Therefore, our proposal is to include internationally independent experts. This is the first reason why we do not approve the present proposal.

Colleagues, nuclear safety has never been the only argument for the Greens to get rid of that technology as soon as possible. It will never be our only argument. This is just one of the many arguments.

Nevertheless, I have had to note that a lot of government spokesmen on ongoing affairs, especially the various ministers of Energy, which our government counts, have made statements that after the stress test, it will be decided whether we will keep the three oldest reactors open longer. In the heads of many policymakers and also of a number of parliamentarians – as I have noted in the committee – there is a link between the discussion on life expectancy and the stress test.

Well, our second problem with the present resolution, is that there is no explicit disconnection in the resolution between the lifetime discussion and the stress test. The best way to say that we have well understood the lessons of Fukushima is to refer to the 2003 law, which still applies today. Apparently this law is still a problem for the traditional parties in our assembly.

Thirdly – colleague Vanvelthoven has already referred to it – apparently few colleagues could be found for the idea to also make a socio-economic analysis in the event of an event. How much does it cost our economy, the Flemish economic fabric, the port of Antwerp, if an incident occurs in the Doel plant? This study has never been conducted until recently. It seemed to us to be a welcome supplement, which is necessary to enable a genuine social and political debate on nuclear security.

This, however, is also not reflected in the compromise proposal, the consensus resolution-Schiltz and consorts.

Fourth, we like a proactive Parliament. Therefore, we would also like to have quite well and not too tightly defined in the parliamentary resolution on the stress test how we would overcome it as a society and as politicians afterwards. That involved a number of game rules to facilitate decision-making later, so that we do not get up on a Friday and have to determine that the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control has made its judgment and that the Council of Ministers has bowed over the stress test.

We think it is crucial to have a real debate in our society after the events in Fukushima about whether we want to take the risk, which has been underestimated for years, with all of it. Hence the proposal to consult in a first phase the municipal councils in the vicinity of nuclear power plants and give their right to advise in a whole discussion, which could be resolved in our assembly. Thus, as MPs, we assume our responsibility and make an analysis of the stress test, not because we are engineers, not because we are employees of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control, but because it is our damned duty as MPs.

We would ⁇ like to see this, Mr. Wollants, at the local level. If your chairman really has the ambition to become mayor of Antwerp, then in 2011 he should look in the eyes of his future voters or non-voters and say that he has confidence in the nuclear power plant 11 kilometers from his metropolis, which counts 450 000 to 500 000 inhabitants. It would testify of sense of responsibility, though it is that in your party sometimes look far.

Mr Calvo, I understand very well what you are doing here. You ⁇ ’t prefer that your party of nuclear power plants can make a municipal theme. You ⁇ ’t prefer that you can scare people everywhere even more. You would prefer that your theme be the subject of elections in the places where you think you want to get mayors in and where your two mayors are also present.

When I look at the amendments you have submitted, you are not asking for more security. You ask for paper. Ask for more information on paper. You are asking for reports for your further legislative work in Parliament to further strengthen the nuclear exit. This is all paper. I ask you, in what way you are asking for more security. This is not reflected in your amendments.

Mr. Wollants, I am not surprised that you build up that reasoning and say that our group wants to make a electoral theme of nuclear security and want to win elections on the cap of those poor Japanese.

I understand why your party builds that reasoning. She always wins elections against something, on someone else’s cap. We do not do politics that way. We believe that our people, the public opinion and the Antwerpers have a damn right to this information.

Fifth, there is already a lot of study work done. We have a green heart and if paper is produced, we are also happy to get an insight into it. This is also one of the proposals our group submits today and we hope to find some support in Parliament.

Indeed, we propose, before we ask the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control to do additional analyses, to inform us, the Parliament and, in extension, the public opinion, of many reports already existing today.

The Federal Agency for Nuclear Control is currently conducting an investigation into the safety of the three oldest reactors, Goal 1, Goal 2 and Tihange 1, and says about this in a strategic note, found on the FANC website, that there are 25 safety concerns for Goal 1 and Goal 2 and 18 for Tihange 1.

In the meantime, I asked five parliamentary questions to the Minister of Home Affairs to tell us what those security concerns are. I always get the answer that one wants to discuss that list first with the operator. There is currently a consultation between the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control and Electrabel. So that is the referee who first visits the player to ask if he wants a green or a yellow card.

We want to abandon this kind of energy policy. This resolution should be a first step in this direction.

The [...]

So next week I may again ask the Minister of Home Affairs a question to be able to view the LTO report, Mr Schiltz, and she will then answer me that it is available and that not only Electrabel has the right to that information? When you say that today, I am already quite reassured.

Mr. Calvo, I do not have the habit, ⁇ unlike you, to know what other people think. I cannot answer on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs.

I understand that you have no ambition to be a spokesman for a policy of non-transparency and of a back-room policy.

I hear a huge squeeze going through the assembly.

I wonder if you think it is normal that nuclear power plant safety research is conducted and financed by all of us and by the citizen, while the first operator, Electrabel, has the right to the information before it can be discussed in Parliament?

Do you find it normal for us to mobilize tax money for new tests before we get access to the results of existing tests? Do you think this is normal, colleagues? Is this the way to make our country’s energy policy in 2011?

I was really happy to get an answer to my question.

Mr. Wollants, Mr. Schiltz, Mr. Vanvelthoven, Mr. Thiébaut, is this normal? Should we really wait for the green light from Electrabel to get the intended information?

Mr Calvo, to speak on my behalf, should I find normal that Electrabel negotiates with the government about the stress tests that are organized? The answer is clear: No. Beyond the normal or non-normal nature of the situation, it would be in any way unacceptable. Should we be surprised that the AFCN sent a draft – which is a provisional document – to Electrabel? and yes. But the least one can say is that the government, since then, has stated that there would be no discounted revision of the specification criteria for stress tests. It is important to note, and you will have the honesty to acknowledge, that we received the draft the same day that this commission was held. And there was no question of re-examining the criteria downwards.

So I can follow you to say that this is not normal. On the other hand, the decisions that followed do not reduce the severity of the criteria that are and will be used.

Mr. Calvo, I find it admirable that you pay so much attention to my opinion in the debate...

You are the biggest party in the country, right? If anything is done without you, you stand on your back legs. We therefore take that into account. We are Democrats, we think your opinion is important.

I will try to answer your question.

Mr. Calvo, you know the principle of an audit, right? You know how it works, right? One makes a number of findings that one then tests and looks at how everything should be interpreted. I find it no problem if the FANC presents its findings and thus achieves the best possible results. You seem to find that a problem. You must know what you want. Do you find the FANC reports valuable? You told us earlier that you don’t actually trust them. At the same time, you are quoting these reports again and again. I want to know what you want.

Should we not just after the stress tests have been carried out and the results are known and we go into the next debate, look at how we can address all those safety concerns that you think exist and how we can best respond to them?

Mr. President, Mr. Calvo, you participated with us in the Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. In this context, we learned that operators had received the project to specify charges for the stress tests to which they would be subjected.

For my part, I am not opposed to the fact that they have received prior information. This allows them to prepare, knowing what to expect, and knowing what will be underlying the stress tests. A problem would arise if the Agency negotiated, with the operators of nuclear power plants, the terms of the specification of charges. But it is not about that. Rather, the AFCN performs its prevention work and launches the stress testing process. This is not a small operation and results are already expected for September.

Colleague Thiébaut, there is a small misunderstanding. I am not talking at all about the fact that the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control provided the criteria first to the operator and then only to us. I am quite angry at the fact that we as parliamentarians are still unable to look at the LTO report – the report drawn up by the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control on the three oldest reactors. That is my indignation.

I would like, Mr. Wollants, that the FANC does its job, that we get insight into it and that we can suggest, in the light of the stress test, to gather additional, independent expertises and let them bow over the stress test. Not more, not less. That transparency is apparently less important for some colleagues than for the Ecolo-Groen! group.

Colleagues, I have noticed that in this hemisphere, as well as in Paris and the Belgian headquarters of Electrabel, there is some nervousness about that stress test. I understand that nervousness when one also goes through the things that have been formulated so far by, for example, parliamentarians. I have already referred to the report of the Nuclear Security Subcommittee, the report of the Senate Investigative Committee of 1991. This is a very interesting work, colleagues.

In 1991, observations were already made about the safety of our three oldest reactors. It noted, among other things, the absence of a double concrete reactor cover in Goal 1 and 2, and the fact that the three oldest reactors are not resistant to the impact of an aircraft, except a sports aircraft. This has produced a number of clear headlines, such as “Stress Test Threat for Goal”. Those things explain your nervousness and the nervousness of Electrabel GDF Suez over the stress test. Allow me not to find that important argument in this.

I understand that nervousness a bit. Until recently, a large majority of this Parliament still planned to keep those three reactors, which are now subject to safety observations and which have been questioning since 1991, open for ten years longer. A few days before the Fukushima disaster, Mr. Wollants submitted another bill to amend the 2003 law. Do you remember, Mr. Wollants, how much longer you wanted to keep the power plants open easily and without large investments? Sixty to seventy years!

My colleagues, we have gone a long way. I think Mr Wollants will no longer say today, as in the explanation of his bill, that we can easily keep the three oldest reactors open for sixty to seventy years without too much investment. This is even far beyond what the majority in this Parliament wanted to go.

I understand the nervousness of some, but it’s not bad to change your mind. It is not bad to say after an incident like Fukushima that things might be different than one thought.

I refer to a very clear interview with the European Commissioner for Energy, Günther Oettinger, a German Christian Democrat said, I quote: “On Chernobyl I could still say that it was the downward Soviet technology, but if even the Japanese engineers can’t master that technology, there is a risk that even I had not estimated, I who until recently was a major advocate of nuclear technology.”

I think that this Parliament is missing from Günter Oettingers, people who dare to say that they have been wrong, that they think differently about it today. The first moment to show that is the stress stress stress resolution and taking action on it. This is lacking in this Parliament.

This resolution does not show that we as politicians in Belgium have well understood the lessons of Fukushima. This is not a parliamentary resolution, but a resolution that has emerged on the government table, a resolution that actually deserves the names of Minister Turtelboom and Mr. De Roovere, Director-General of the FANC. This resolution is still too much a product of the Belgian energy policy of recent years.

These are good reasons for the Green! group, which has been on the barricade for nuclear security for years, to refuse to approve this resolution, with a lot of conviction and outrage.

I’ll be brief, because it’s hard to talk long about nothing.

Let me review the badon resolution on badon stress tests!

"Ask the government to continue to advocate at the European level." It doesn't seem to me that the government had announced that it does not intend to continue to advocate at the European level. by Bidon!

"Request the government to apply the criteria of the AFCN proposal in the Belgian Stress Tests Specifications." The Minister of the Interior gave his fiat for these specifications to be sent to the AFCN and transmitted to Electrabel. We are asking the government to do what it did a month ago! by Bidon!

"Ask the government to propose a methodology and a timetable for carrying out stress tests on other class 1 nuclear installations."I heard, a month ago, Ms. Turtelboom said in a committee that she would do so. Mrs. Turtelboom is asked to say what she said a month ago! by Bidon!

There are three more, but it will go quickly.

"Request to communicate with the maximum transparency" – butt already – "on the results of stress tests within the specified time." This last point is your problem but for what is the maximum transparency: butt! There is indeed on the AFCN website – for those who are interested, it’s not paper, it’s a screen – a report stating that there are seven defects in Tihange and three or four in Doel. We asked, we parliamentarians, to have a list of these defects but we cannot receive it. We can create commissions to investigate the murders of Brabant, no problem, it is not dangerous! We can set up investigative commissions on Fortis, no problem! But having this list is very dangerous! Therefore, the bidon!

All these scams are not deceiving anyone.

In today’s Le Monde newspaper, page 9, the following question is asked to the French: “In your opinion, will the safety of nuclear power plants be independently assessed or not by scientists?” 72% answered no. and 72 percent. by Bidon! If we do such a survey in Belgium, we will get an Italian score!

Your bidon resolution attempt does not deceive the French at 72%. In Belgium, it would be an Italian score. Therefore, we will not look too much at it!

"To reach an agreement with the Dutch and French authorities (...)" to establish a strategy of the type 'I hold you, you hold me by the barbichette'. Do you think a regulator will publicly tell his neighbor that he has done his job? What is the probability that this happens? Conclusion of BIDON!

And finally, "on the basis of the results of the stress tests, take safety measures." You would still not write: "And then, put everything in the garbage." For the sixth time: BUDON!

We’ve told you: shake, real stress tests. Will it be mandatory in Europe? It is already finished. and homogeneous? It is also over, as in Chooz, that we go to see Mr. Fillon or not, it is he who decides and therefore there will be no tests on aircraft crashes, etc. Forget the independence of stress tests since there will even be no independent scientists in the panels despite an excellent letter written by the PS group leader to the French National Assembly saying that this was one of three conditions for credible stress tests.

And so, at badon resolution, stress tests badons!

Mr. President, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, if I take the floor in this tribune, Mr. Deleuze, it is that you have presented what you thought was a good reading. I am referring to your resolution.

Of course, I will not do like you and I will not read everything. Hearing you, you can laugh at a lot of things, but let’s take a point of your resolution: “(...) asks the government to make a clear statement in favour of the binding nature of the security test.”

As I know, and referring to the way you have presented things, since the government has already committed to do so, I should also answer this point of your resolution proposal: bidon! I respect the parliamentary debate. You can have fun on a lot of things, but not on such a debate!

(Protests on the Ecolo/Groen banks!)

Do you want another example? I would like to, but I think that a parliamentary debate should retain a minimum of respect, Mr. Deleuze.

You’re not going to force us to pretend to believe in your text “beard to dad”. Isn’t that a bitch?

Madame Fonck, Mr. Deleuze talked about the bidon, continue!

Mr. Deleuze, I did not have the impression that you have been very respectful to your predecessor at the tribune, namely Mr. Deleuze. by Calvo. No matter what, I hope we are all convinced that it would have been neither acceptable nor responsible not to react to the Fukushima drama. And I’m not just talking about Belgium. All nuclear installations, wherever they are, are affected. Nor would it have been acceptable or responsible that the many statements that followed this drama remain dead letter.

At the European level, the position and communication of the European Commission have evolved surprisingly and interpellantly between the strong statements of the post-Fukushima post-Fukushima in March 2011 and the decisions taken subsequently. I think in particular of the establishment of a working group, whose conclusions should have been delivered on 12 June. It was its responsibility to determine whether aspects related to the human factor – such as aircraft crashes or sabotage – would be tested across the European Union. This debate is ⁇ not closed, and we will return to it, I have no doubt, either with Mrs. Turtelboom or with the government as a whole.

Since the start of the committee debates, but also in the questions asked in the plenary session, the CDH has always pledged for demanding criteria and stress tests. We also demanded that Belgium express a strong position on the European level. Some European countries, let’s not hide ourselves from the four bars, limit the severity of the tests they should resort to or would like to see used on a European scale.

We also advocated for testing to be carried out on all nuclear installations and not only power plants. We also want a peer review, the opinion of experts, independent of course, as well as transparency in terms of results.

These various elements are found in the proposal for a resolution. Certainly, we could have made the choice – you have suggested it in particular through the filing of certain amendments – to have a resolution proposal with an eminently technical content.

Personally, I have no pretension of substituting for engineers, who are not AFCN fools, or for independent experts. Everyone must take his job. Politically, yes, we have ambitious goals, a significant volunteerism! We affirm this before Parliament and want to ensure that these goals will be followed well by acts.

At the same time, it would be ⁇ unhealthy if the policy replaced those who are competent in testing. I have more confidence in independent experts, especially those of the AFCN, rather than in policies that, tomorrow, would eventually assume that role.

Ms. Fonck, I have a particular difficulty with the reasoning you build. You say that we lack expertise to decide what that stress test should mean. My group has never had the ambition to determine each point and every comma of that stress test, nor had it the ambition to subsequently analyze or re-do the inspection itself.

Can you give me a reason why a little more than a year ago you had the technical baggage to keep those three oldest reactors open longer, but now suddenly do not have the technical expertise to determine the guidelines, quite abstract matters, the principles of the stress test? Why could your government, your party—not all engineers at that time—decide to keep them open for longer, but today do not set criteria for the stress test? Why do you leave that to the engineers and experts who have dominated the debate too often?

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat the debate that took place in the committee here, but I would like to make two observations.

Except for my mistake, you do not participate in the work of this famous working group set up at European level. Not participating in it either, so I do not know what is happening there, what is being said there, nor what experts and engineers are looking at the issue. But you know as well as I do, and in this matter, Europe will not examine in detail the different types of stress tests. It will ultimately be a matter of knowing the level of severity of the criteria that will be used.

Should stress tests be carried out at European level? Ideally yes. Should we be in favor of the use of strict criteria for all nuclear installations in Europe? Yes, and I can’t imagine that parliamentarians could think differently. It was about Chooz and Gravelines. Can we imagine that we, parliamentarians, in this hemicycle, alone can impose decisions, ⁇ on France? and no.

That said, the prime minister met with his French counterpart to discuss the issue. I think this is a good initiative. The exchange of data is a good thing. Of course, we would like more things to be done, but I do not think that Mr. Leterme can make decisions in the place of Mr. Fillon, although it can be regretted in all languages!

Mrs. Fonck, you are cycling pretty far around my question. Maybe there’s a misunderstanding, or otherwise you’re trying to conveniently bypass an important and very fundamental issue of this debate, if good politica you are. I treat you very respectfully.

My question was: why does this assembly – there were several other members of parliament, but the composition has not changed entirely – have the technical expertise, more than a year ago, to extend the life of those three power plants, but do these politicians not have the right diploma to now simply set criteria, abstract principles, for the European stress test? Why do you give that assignment to experts and do not want to take your responsibility as a people’s representative in doing so?

Madame Fonck, you lack a bit of ambition in this matter. I could tell you about the Gravelines power plant which is located near several Flemish provinces but I know especially the Chooz nuclear power plant. Do you know where the Chooz plant is located? It is located exactly at the border of our country in a arm of Meuse. If a problem arose, the difficulties would be in our country because the Meuse flows to Belgium and the winds usually blow to Belgium. In addition, within a radius of ten kilometers around the Chooz power plant, at least 70% of the citizens are Belgian, the rest being French.

The minimum that can be required on behalf of all those citizens who live in the vicinity of the Chooz power plant and who are mainly Namurois and to a lesser extent Luxembourg or French, is to have a maximum level of requirement. This plant was built at a time when there was no regulatory framework. Countries could then erect dangerous industries, such as a nuclear power plant, on the borders of other countries. This time is outdated! Today, European rules set frameworks that require consultation with neighboring countries. For Belgians living near the Chooz plant, there must be a maximum level of requirement. We cannot simply say that it is impossible. On behalf of the citizens we represent, we need to be much more ambitious in this matter than in the resolution you are going to vote on.

Mr. Calvo, I ask for a little intellectual honesty.

You accuse parliamentarians here that they only have the technical expertise themselves and that they do not need engineers to keep the power plants open longer, as if they have seen the sacred light. Then, when it comes to closing, you say ...

Mr. Calvo, I will give you the floor later. This is a debate that has probably already taken place in the committee. This also applies to Mr. Schiltz as for others. This applies to everyone, in fact!

Such behavior begins to irritate me. This is a copy of the committees. If someone says something, Mr. Calvo must be able to come back a thousand times, if one serves him as a replica, the cock is too small and he must be able to cut everyone off. Let me speak for a moment.

Mr Calvo, you argue that some MPs have the technical baggage to say that nuclear power plants must be opened, à tort et à travers, as if they have seen the sacred light, but not for determining stress tests. Mr. Calvo, here is a text for which it has been discussed. Each text is inspired by intuition and preliminary study work. You have done that too. This text has been discussed in the committee and specialists have been heard about the stress tests. No draft law has yet been discussed, no resolution has yet been discussed, and no specialists have yet been heard. As I just told you, you can’t look into my head and you can’t know if, unlike you, I might have had the humility to have consulted specialists if the bill on the extension of the life of nuclear power plants were on the table. Please stop with that.

Mr. Gilkinet, I understand your ambition and I share it, although it may not be so boundless. I cannot tell what is happening in France. Stop accusing our government that it would not have done everything to get a stress test at European level similar to the strict requirements we want to impose on ourselves in Belgium.

Mr Schiltz, completely unconsciously you give a completely wrong interpretation of my intervention. I do not want to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. Therefore, I make a second attempt. I have not said that other MPs than the Greens do not have the technical expertise. I have only said that certain members of parliament apparently do not – I am not afraid to use these words again – have the sense of responsibility to determine the criteria of the stress tests – not the points and comms but the general principles – themselves.

I understand that you need to take back the promotion speech of the ministers because they are not here today, but Belgium has kept its mouth at the European meetings, at the WENRA meetings and at the ENSREG meetings. Belgium was not the engine. Germany, Austria and the European Commission have stood on the barricades. Mr. De Roovere himself stated: “It is because we did not want to give the impression that we are playing in a political game that we have set up our low profile.”

Can I ask Ms. Fonck to finish her speech? My belief is that you will never agree! Are you going to finish, Mrs. Fonck?

I am being censored, Mr. President.

In order to follow the theories of "there is only to," I may make a suggestion to Mr. Gilkinet or Mr. by Calvo. I know a little about Chooz. Indeed, you still speak of the Namurois, but the Hainaut is located next door and, personally, I have always strongly expressed myself to denounce this small appendix that penetrates into Belgium and in which the power plant was installed, thus exposing the Belgian neighbors in full blast.

But in view of the above, gentlemen, I suggest you – because the “there is only to” annoys me – to call Mr. by Fillon. I am pretty sure that mr. Leterme will give you its number. Contact with Mr. Fillon, go see it and frankly, we’ll see if you get it! But I can’t let it be said that others have done nothing, do nothing or do nothing! Indeed, we must have ambition, we must continue at the European level and not release the pressure. In addition, I had suggested it in a committee, beyond the work carried out at the European level, I considered it important that the Belgian government takes the initiative of contacts with France, given the existence of the Chooz power plant but also that of Gravelines which, if it does not potentially have impacts on Namur, has on the Belgian neighbors.

Madame Fonck, I do not accept your lessons of "there is only to." You could also have mentioned the Cattenom power plant, very close to the province of Luxembourg.

I suggest that you invite your local representatives from the South Namur region to come – I do so systematically – to participate with me in the public meetings organized around the Chooz plant by the French authorities to defend our point of view. I personally see that the Belgians are not present in mass.

This document is essential to us. I also regularly ask the Minister of the Interior about this and we take full responsibility in this matter. As soon as we have joined this government, Mr. Wathelet, we will go to the French authorities.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to intervene because I live 20 km from the Chooz plant, but when I hear Mr. Chooz. Gilkinet talking about the local representatives of the southern province of Namur, I turn to our friend Secretary of State Delizée, also local representative of this region and also living 20 km from the power plant. I would like Mr. Gilkinet doesn’t say anything.

In fact, from time to time he goes with his friends around the power plant to demonstrate. It is his right. I, as a local representative of the South Namurois, will not protest: I feel that this is not my role. In contrast, with colleagues such as Jean-Marc Delizée and the Governor of Namur Province, official bodies work and collaborate with the Chooz District to decide on a serious security policy. I am not accompanied by Mr. Gilkinet in his Saint-Guy dance around the plant, but I collaborate within official bodies.

That is why I could not let such words pass, Mr. President!

(The applause )

I waste a lot of my speech time: let me put one more, Mr. Gilkinet!

(Brouhaha) by

What a show! Continue to . After all, if a power plant explodes, no one will be there, whether we are near or not! I give the floor to Mr. Gilkinet, then Ms. Fonck will finish. It is becoming folklore.

I’ve never gone to demonstrate in Chooz, but maybe it will come. I am talking about official meetings of consultation between citizens, at which I have participated. As well as my colleagues, I do not accept caricature! Maybe Mrs. De Permentier does not care, because it is probably far enough from Brussels!

As for the Chooz Local Information Commission, which is the body set up by...

I thank the socialist banks for showing their interest in the issue!

So, as for the Chooz Local Information Commission, the only regular Belgian representative of public authorities is the Governor of Namur Province.

He does his job!

Therefore, I consider that there is a lack of interest and involvement of the Belgian authorities with regard to the safety of the Chooz plant.

But governors have to do something somewhere, right?

It is mr. Mathen, an excellent governor.

At least we will agree on this point! I will continue, Mr. President.

Finish above all!

I end it. In any case, the story is not over. That is the least that can be said. I am not talking about today’s debate, Mr. Speaker. Let us not get upset!

I think the story is not over, on the contrary, and the vigilance is obviously put in place. It is on two points, I think. First, whatever the European decision – which I hope is as demanding as possible in terms of stress tests – in the end, Belgium will have to maintain a strong attitude. In other words, it will have to impose strict criteria for both natural disasters and human factors testing (whether aircraft accidents or sabotage).

Then, the results of the stress tests, whatever they may be, will be assumed. This element seems to me ⁇ important. Indeed, beyond this somewhat tense debate, I hope that we are guided by the safety and health of citizens.

Ladies and gentlemen, this affects me. For me, democracy is the collaboration of conflicting ideas. Most colleagues here understand the art of getting ideas to collide into a creative outcome. We should not always agree. However, what I see there, especially in the head of Mr. Calvo, affects me.

Dear Greens, you need to know what you want. A resolution is being submitted, the next day of the Fukushima disaster. There is unanimity on the high urgency. The Nuclear Safety Subcommittee is being re-established, partly under my own impulse if I can say so. So please do not tell us that we do not take the issue seriously or that we do not take nuclear security seriously. Mr Calvo, you have discussed the texts. You have behaved more like a small child who is never satisfied when he doesn’t get what he wants.

The [...]

Mr. Calvo, my argument is short and you can then replicate.

The word is for mr. by Calvo!

There is one we can look at with the head raised. No, it is not a faint decoction of a gang of parliamentarians sitting in the pocket of some energy company. No, it is not a disapproval of independent regulators, which, by the way, have been tightened in a previous legislature. Mr. Calvo, it is a correct piece of text, with a correct commitment. The government picked up the rail very quickly and took part in it. Mr. Calvo, I refuse to sow evil faith in the heads and hearts of the colleagues who have contributed to this text.

It is you who provokes it.

Wisdom is also the ability to resist provocation.

Mr. Speaker, our group has been very clearly and very assertively involved in the debate. At no time, however, we have spoken words like a small child. Mr. Clarinval hangs on a story that Mr. Gilkinet performs bizarre dances for a nuclear power plant. We have never reduced ourselves to that level in this debate.

Mr Schiltz, you say that maturity is synonymous with willingness to compromise on nuclear security, a little downsize, follow the mainstream logic of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control. Well, then I am with great pleasure in this little child, because it is indeed about our children and grandchildren and the nuclear security of those generations.

Mr. Calvo, you want to repeat, and again repeat, and again repeat, until everyone becomes nauseous of fatigue and you as the only one, as last man standing, can walk out. This is not how it works.

It is a confrontation of ideas. I tell you that it is my conviction that this is a good text. If that is not your idea, tant pis, but let me speak at least once. Indeed, you have not spoken like a small child, but you make certain comparisons and you sow comments in the sense of “Mrs. Fonck, I respect you very much”, where the cynicism diminishes. You are very wise, Mr. Calvo, but I warn you “sic transit gloria Calvonis”. (Applause and Rumor)

I’m looking forward to the Ecolo-Green! Let us say that we are not committed to nuclear security. The text is more stringent than ever. A concrete commitment is being made and the text drives the government so far by making a hasty hurry to turn it into reality.

The cooperation in the subcommittee was, by the way, exemplary, with explicit thanks to all the factions, except that of you, Mr. Calvo. I say this with regret in my heart. Mr. Deleuze attempts, from time to time, with some wise words and gentleness, to conduct the debate constructively, but I missed it.

I would like to say a special thank you to Mr Vanvelthoven, although his position and mine were not always the same. Nevertheless, he tried to move forward. Go ahead, Mr Calvo!

Mr Calvo, you encouraged the debate, for which I thank you. That comes to you. Accept that honor, enjoy it, but do something with it. We are not in politics to create ourselves, but to ⁇ something. This is the case with the present text.

If there is one lesson to be learned from Fukushima, Mr. Calvo, then it is the next one. You say we did not learn from Fukushima, but we did.

This is what we have done, and you will find that in the text. That security in energy policy is at the top and is not negotiable, we have learned. If you are intellectually honest, you must acknowledge that.

The lesson we have not learned, Mr. Calvo, is that you are always right. I will never learn that.

There are 148 other members in this Assembly!

Maybe yes, but...

You are busy, two people, to mobilize a whole debate!

I have an argument of authority. I also speak to the chairman of the Nuclear Security Subcommittee because with all my colleagues, I had the same feeling. I am so disgusted, Mr. Calvo.

This is not possible, you will never stop!

Mr. Speaker, in nuclear security, it is very clear that there is a clear division in this hemisphere: the Greens against the rest.

Colleagues, I hope that you will approve this text with the same enthusiasm and constructivism and do not fall into the lesson of Wormpje Never Enough.

Dear colleagues, I give the floor to Mr. Calvo for a personal fact.

Mr. Speaker, if someone addresses me 37 times, please allow me to intervene three times.

Mr Schiltz, I have been very clear in saying that thanks to this Parliament we have taken a number of steps forward, but it is insufficient. It is not the safety analysis we expect after Fukushima. If your safety analysis were as comprehensive as psychoanalysis.

It is finished! I give the floor to Mr. by Vanvelthoven.

Mr. Speaker, colleague Schiltz has been a little too premature in his enthusiasm when he says that it is Green! against the rest. I have subsequently extended my attention to another aspect of nuclear security, namely the socio-economic aspect.

At this point I note that Open Vld thinks differently than sp.a and then mr. Everybody shaving on the same chest is not quite correct in these. We agree on the stress test, but on other aspects of nuclear safety I would like to see how far Open Vld wants to go.