As before, decision-making in energy issues is felt to be distant. People feel that they have few chances to participate in and influence such decision-making. Almost two out of three (63%) think that their opinions have not been sufficiently heard in energy decisions. This opinion has been dominant throughout the follow-up period of the study. In the latest results the criticism is slightly more biting than the year before, although at the same time there is less criticism than in the entire study period on average [Figure 24.].

In various connections, there proved to be extensive confidence in the legislation and official control relating to energy solutions. This is also true with regard to nuclear power, the attitudes towards which pay crucial attention to safety considerations. The claim that 'the authorities have coped well with the safety control of nuclear power plants in Finland', which was re-introduced after an interval of almost twenty years, now produces a fairly accepting result. Three of four (73%) are in favour of this, only a marginal minority (3%) deny it. Like-mindedness is substantially greater than in the results of the 1980s used for comparison. The time series shows an increase in uncertainty in 1986, the year of Chernobyl [Figure 25.].

In connection with this, the safety of the new nuclear power plant under construction also receives absolution. The claim that 'when the fifth nuclear power plant is completed, it will be even safer than the existing plants that have proved to be safe as such' is accepted by more than one half (52%). The estimate is only rejected by one in seven people (14%). The distribution indicates that the 'prototype' criticism expressed in public, according to which the selection of plant type means that our country is assuming the risky position of a 'minesweeper', has not had any significant sounding board in the public opinion. As this is a new question, there is no follow-up information available on this [Figure 26.].

When the aspect of control is extended to the level of the European Union, opinions become less certain. Although the role of the EU as an 'overseer' of the national practices in nuclear power questions is considered recommendable, it is not believed that this would directly benefit our own country. This is how the results of the two questions addressing the theme can be interpreted. The claim 'Decisions about regulations concerning safety of nuclear power and nuclear waste should be made jointly at the EU level, not in each member country separately' is agreed with (58%) much more than disagreed with (24%). Support for common regulations has slightly increased on the previous measurement [Figure 27.].

The reaction to the extended claim 'If the EU issues common safety standards on nuclear power, they would enhance safe use of nuclear power also in Finland' is more sceptical and also more uncertain. One third (32%) is in favour, while an almost equal number (28%) is against. The result does not significantly deviate from that received a year earlier (no figures).

Naturally, the government does not have the sole right to decision-making in energy matters. Companies also make energy-related decisions, and their strategic policies are the greater the more the traditional steering power of society moves over to the markets. However, independent decision-making by companies arouses mistrust among the population. Only one in five (20%) accept the idea that companies should be able to decide for themselves which energy sources they use for producing electricity. This right is rejected by more than half of the respondents (55%). There may be several kinds of factors behind the rejecting attitude. It may be partly due to the fact that people want to keep decision-making on nuclear power as it stands, i.e. requiring official confirmation. The most recent result indicates that the demands for control have strengthened. The more permissive tone of the two previous measurements has disappeared and attitudes have even become somewhat stricter than the initial position in 2000. An exhaustive description of the change may be somewhat difficult [Figure 28.].