Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-14-Speech-4-141"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001214.4.4-141"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first I would like to associate myself and the Commission wholeheartedly with the moving remarks made by the honourable gentleman, Mr Galeote Quecedo at the outset of this session. I would like, as well, to salute the courage of all those in Spain like Basta Ya and those involved in the democratic process who resist terrorism in all its cowardly and vicious forms. I was here yesterday during the presentation of the Sakharov Prize to listen to Basta Ya. I agreed entirely with everything that was said yesterday and I too would like to offer my condolences to the family and friends of the murdered democratically-elected official. I have had some experience of dealing with terrorism myself in another environment and I very strongly support those who resist terrorism.
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 United Kingdom's decision in that regard. That is a matter for the UK authorities.
I state what is the law. With regard to Article 37, the honourable Member can work to change the law and change the Treaty. I am telling her what I and my colleague Mr Wallström are legally advised is the position under the directives and Treaties. If she is a better lawyer than them, then I look forward to hearing from her. With regard to Article 37, then, 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's 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 again stress that every word I am delivering in this Chamber is what I am told by our legal advisers.
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 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. What I am doing and saying about public access to documents is, as the House will know, entirely within the rules on public access, when there has been a complaint and when there may be, as a result of the complaint, infraction proceedings. Under the usual complaints procedure, as I have said, we cannot make the reply public – although we can say, as I have, what, broadly speaking, is in the reply.
Now I want to go beyond the legal. Speaking personally, I would encourage the British Government to make that reply public. I want to underline that point. As I mentioned, the reply makes reference to the nuclear intervention plan for Gibraltar. This is a public document available in the Gibraltar Public Library. I therefore asked my office last night to contact the Chief Secretary's office in Gibraltar to ask for a copy. I have a copy here and I am happy to provide it to the House straight away. I will respond again at the end of the debate, if I may.
I am sorry for taking rather longer than my allotted time, but it is an important subject. I just want to say one final word about the complaints so that Parliament knows
what the situation is. We have received
complaints so far. The first two have been registered with the Secretary-General, and the first reply has been sent. The last two complaints have only been received in the last few days and have been sent to the Secretary-General for registration. When the information in those complaints has been assessed by Commission officials and when more information has been sought and obtained from the United Kingdom, we will reply substantively to those complaints. I repeat that the information which we are able to make available on that process will be as is set out in the existing code on the public access to documents.
I want to repeat again that the more information that is provided by the British Government on this issue, the better.
I am grateful to the honourable Members for their questions to which I am replying on behalf of my colleague, Commissioner Wallström. She regrets that she cannot be here to answer the questions in person because she is engaged in meetings in Brussels to prepare for next week's important ministerial meeting on climate change. I know the House recognises that she would have been here if possible and it falls to me to answer in her stead.
I just want to say one thing to the honourable Member who spoke a moment or two ago. When I became a Commissioner I swore an oath to be completely independent in the performance of my duties in the general interest of the Communities, to neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body in the performance of my duties. I would not take an oath lightly.
Honourable Members have asked a number of questions relating to the presence of the British nuclear submarine
in Gibraltar for repairs to her nuclear reactor. I know the Commission knows how concerned they are about this issue and I hope that this debate is heard and read elsewhere. Honourable Members have asked whether the Commission considers that Directives 89/618/Euratom, on informing the public in the event of radiological emergency, and 96/29/Euratom on basic safety standards, 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, naturally, I have carefully read the terms of the joint motion for a resolution. I want to make a few remarks now and since this is an extremely important debate and important issues will be raised, I hope that I will be able to intervene again briefly at the end of the debate to pick up any points which have not been resolved.
I can confirm that the issue to which honourable Members refer has indeed been the subject of complaints to the Commission and I will come back and talk about those complaints at the end of my remarks. Let me set out the position under the Euratom Treaty. Chapter III 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 III concerns plans for the disposal of radioactive waste. The procedure under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty relates to the submission of plans for the 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 entirely in line with its legal competences. A letter was sent by the Commission to the British authorities on 10 October 2000. This requested information on: firstly, 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; secondly, 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; thirdly, whether these measures take into account the possible impact on Spanish territory; fourthly, 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, known as "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 by the interested parties, which include the British Ministry of Defence, the Gibraltar Government and the emergency services and is issued by the Chief Officer, Gibraltar City Fire Brigade, and the Commander of British Forces, on behalf of the Gibraltar Local Liaison Committee." Gibpubsafe is apparently a public document and is freely available in the Gibraltar Public Library – but I will come back to that in a moment."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Protests from Ms Izquierdo Rojo)"1
"exactly"1
"four"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples