6Wdwhphqw Rq Wkh Vxepdulqh +06 7Luhohvv

63((&+ 7KH5W+RQ&KULV3DWWHQ Commissioner for External Relations 6WDWHPHQW RQ WKH VXEPDULQH +06 7LUHOHVV Plenary Session of the European Parliament 6WUDVERXUJWK'HFHPEHU 2SHQLQJ6SHHFK First, let me associate myself and the Commission with the remarks made by the Hon. Member Mr Galeote and others on the murder of the democratically elected councillor, Sr Francisco Cano. I extend my condolences to his family and I salute the courage of all those in Spain who stand up to the evil of terrorism in all its cowardly and vicious manifestations. Only yesterday we received in this chamber representatives of Basta Ya, who won this year’s Sakharov prize; I agreed with everything they said. I am grateful to the Honourable Members for their questions, to which I am responding on behalf of Commissioner Wallström. Mrs Wallström regrets that she cannot be here to answer the questions on HMS TIRELESS in person because she is engaged in meetings in Brussels to prepare for next week’s important Ministerial meeting on climate change. Honourable Members have asked a number of questions relating to the presence of the British nuclear submarine HMS TIRELESS in Gibraltar for repairs to her nuclear reactor. I know – the Commission knows – how concerned they are about this issue. Honourable Members have asked if the Commission considers that directives 89/618/Euratom on ,QIRUPLQJWKH3XEOLFLQWKH(YHQWRI5DGLRORJLFDO(PHUJHQF\and 96/29/Euratom on %DVLF 6DIHW\ 6WDQGDUGV apply in relation to the submarine, and what steps have been taken accordingly. Honourable Members have also asked a question concerning Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty in relation to the presence of the submarine in Gibraltar. And I have naturally read carefully the terms of the joint Motion for a Resolution. I can confirm the issue to which Honourable Members refer has indeed been the subject of complaints to the Commission. Let me set out the position under the Euratom Treaty. Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty – headed Health and Safety – is the legal basis for the three directives that are potentially relevant: − Directive 89/618/Euratom on Informing the Public in the Event of Radiological Emergency, Directive 96/29/Euratom on Basic Safety Standards and Directive 92/3/Euratom on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste; − Article 37 of Chapter 3 concerns plans for the disposal of radioactive waste. The procedure under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty relates to the submission of plans for disposal of radioactive waste, so as to enable the Commission to determine whether the implementation of such a plan is liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State. The Commission has taken the following action. A letter was sent by the Commission to the British authorities on 10 October 2000. This requested information on: − the existence of an intervention plan for the area of Gibraltar and for the port of Gibraltar under the terms of Article 50 of Directive 96/29/Euratom; − measures taken to inform the public in the event of a radiological emergency in connection with the repairs being carried out to the submarine in the port of Gibraltar; 2 − whether these measures take into account the possible impact on Spanish territory; − whether there are any plans for shipment of radioactive waste, resulting from the repair of the submarine, from Gibraltar to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom authorities replied by letter on 14 November and 1 December. These replies are currently under technical and legal assessment by the Commission’s experts. But at this stage the Commission can give the following information. In reply to whether an intervention plan exists for the area of Gibraltar and the port of Gibraltar, the British authorities have drawn the Commission’s attention to the existence of the Gibraltar Public Safety Scheme (GIBPUBSAFE), which is the intervention plan for Gibraltar. The Commission is analysing this plan. The British authorities state that GIBPUBSAFE provides background information and guidance on action to be taken in the event of a nuclear accident in Gibraltar. The intervention plan is drawn up, state the British authorities, by the interested parties – which include the British Ministry of Defence, the Gibraltar Government and emergency services – and is issued by the Chief Officer, Gibraltar City Fire Brigade and the Commander British Forces on behalf of the Gibraltar Local Liaison Committee. GIBPUBSAFE is a public document, and is freely available in the Gibraltar public library. The British authorities state that there will be no shipment of radioactive waste that will transit through any other Member State. They also state that they are in regular contact with the Spanish authorities. Honourable Members also asked if the port of Gibraltar meets the technical conditions needed for the repair of nuclear submarines. The Euratom Treaty does not enable the Commission to offer any judgement on the UK’s decisions in that regard; this is a matter for the UK authorities. With regard to Article 37, due to the fact that a submarine is concerned for the first time, further assessment of the general applicability of Article 37 to such cases is being carried out by the Commission Services. It is clear, however, that Article 37 relates to the disposal of radioactive waste in general. The Community competence does not require general data to be submitted for the specific repair operations being undertaken. I have made it absolutely clear that we have to base our response to the legitimate concerns raised with us on the basis of Community competence. Pursuing Community competence, we have received a letter from the UK authorities, in response to a letter of our own, and to which I referred earlier. Under the usual complaints’ procedure, we are not entitled to make this reply public, although we can say broadly what it says. Speaking personally, I would encourage the British Government to make that reply public. As I mentioned, the reply makes reference to the nuclear intervention plan for Gibraltar (GIBPUBSAFE). This is a public document, as I mentioned, available in the Gibraltar public library. My office therefore contacted the Chief Secretary’s Office in Gibraltar yesterday to ask for a copy, which I have here. I am happy to provide this document to the House. 3 +067,5(/(66±:,1'8363((&+ I was well aware from reading the newspapers and listening to the radio and television of the passions engendered by this important issue. Those feelings have, understandably, been reflected in this debate. But Honourable Members know that in responding on behalf of my colleague, Commissioner Wallström, I must restrict myself to setting out clearly what is – and what is not – Community competence: Community competence under the terms of Chapter 3 “Health and Safety” of the Euratom Treaty covers the following issues relevant to this case: D LQIRUPLQJWKHJHQHUDOSXEOLFDERXWKHDOWKSURWHFWLRQPHDVXUHVWREH DSSOLHGDQGVWHSVWREHWDNHQLQWKHHYHQWRIDUDGLRORJLFDOHPHUJHQF\ E WKHDYDLODELOLW\RIDQLQWHUYHQWLRQSODQWRGHDOZLWKYDULRXVW\SHVRI UDGLRORJLFDOHPHUJHQF\ F WKHVXSHUYLVLRQDQGFRQWURORIVKLSPHQWVRIUDGLRDFWLYHZDVWH All these issues are being assessed further in detail by Commission Officials. This competence enables the Commission to ensure that Member States: − Inform the public of potential risks and steps to take should a radiological emergency occur; − Adequately control and supervise shipments of radioactive waste Community competence does not extend to: a) The classification of ports to carry out repair work on nuclear submarines. b) Questions of technical safety of nuclear reactors c) Requiring the submarine to be removed for repair elsewhere To answer one specific point which has been raised, that of co-operation between Member States, I can assure the Honourable Members that such co-operation is explicitly required in Community legislation. Article 51.5 of the Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive 96/29/Euratom, states that “Each Member State shall, in the event of a radiological emergency occurring at an installation on its territory or being likely to have radiological consequences on its territory, establish relations to obtain co-operation with any other Member State or non-Member State which may be involved”. An additional point which has been raised in this context is the applicability of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty concerning the submission of general data relating to plans for the disposal of radioactive waste. The relevance of the Community competence in this case is not clear. The general question of submission of plans for nuclear power submarines is being studied by Commission Officials. The Community competence does not require general data to be submitted for the specific repair operation being undertaken. Let me just say that I assume that if any Member State had doubts about the way the Commission has handled its competence in this matter it would let us know. 4 Finally, with respect to the questions raised about complaints received by the Commission in this case, I can confirm that four complaints have indeed been received. The first two have indeed been registered with the Secretariat General as complaints and an initial reply has been sent. The last two have only been received in the last few days and have been sent to the Secretariat General for registration as complaints. When the information has been assessed by Commission officials and when more information has been sought and obtained from the UK, the Commission will reply substantively to the complainants. Speaking not as a Commissioner, but as a politician who was once also an Environment Minister, it seems to me that the important thing in cases like this is to make as much information public as possible. I would urge the British authorities to do that. For its part, the Commission undertakes to keep Honourable Members who have raised these questions with us informed of developments in the coming weeks. 5.

Load more