2 Civil protection against disasters
and emergencies
| (a)
(26520)
8430/05
COM(05) 137
(b)
(27264)
5865/06
COM(06) 29
+ ADD 1
|
Commission Communication: Improving the Community Civil Protection Mechanism
Draft Council Decision establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism
Commission staff working document: Impact assessment
|
| Legal base | (b) Article 308 EC and Article 203 Euratom; consultation; unanimity
|
| Document originated | (b) 26 January 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (b) 7 February 2006
|
| Department | Cabinet Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 14 June 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | (a) See footnote 5
(b) None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | (a) Politically important
(b) Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (a) (a) Cleared
(b) (b) Not cleared; further information requested
|
Introduction
2.1 The EC was involved in the response to the tsunami of December
2004, the earthquakes in Algeria and Iran in 2003, the huge forest
fires in France and Portugal and other disasters. In the light
of that experience, the Commission proposes that the Community's
civil protection arrangements should be modified.
2.2 We considered the Commission's proposals in October
2005 and in February.[5]
They concern:
- the EU Solidarity Fund which
provides grants for up to half the cost of rescue operations,
cleaning up, restoring public services and providing temporary
accommodation;
- the Community Civil Protection Mechanism, which
is run by the Commission. Its main purpose is to mobilise immediate
practical help (such as experts and equipment to clean-up oil
pollution or fight forest fires) from Member States for countries
inside and outside the EU which have suffered a major disaster;
and
- the Community Civil Protection Action Programme
which funds the operation of the Mechanism and provides grants
to Member States, EFTA countries, Bulgaria and Romania to encourage
cross-border co-operation and mutual assistance in the preparations
for and response to major disasters (through seminars, projects,
training and similar activities).
2.3 The proposals
were set out in a Commission Communication (document (a)) and
the drafts
of two Regulations, one to extend the life of the European Union
Solidarity Fund until 2013 and the other to create a rapid response
and preparedness instrument for major emergencies.
Legal background
2.4 Article 3(1)(u) of the EC Treaty provides that
the activities of the Community shall include measures "in
the spheres of energy, civil protection and tourism".
2.5 Article 308 of the EC Treaty provides the legal
base for measures which are necessary to attain, in the operation
of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community but
for which the necessary power is not provided elsewhere in the
Treaty.
2.6 Similarly, Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty
provides the legal base for measures necessary to achieve an objective
of that Treaty but for which the necessary power is not provided
elsewhere. However, Article 203 contains no reference to the operation
of the common market.
Previous scrutiny of document (a)
2.7 The Commission's Communication, document (a),
makes detailed proposals about ways to improve the EC's preparations
for major disasters, the speed and quality of the Community's
response and the coordination of Member States' efforts in the
disaster area.
2.8 When we considered the document and the two draft
Regulations which accompanied it, we recognised the benefit of
countries pooling their resources to deal with major disasters
and emergencies. We had no difficulty, therefore, in understanding
the aims of these three documents.
2.9 We noted, however that the Commission proposed
that the EC should provide civil protection assistance inside
or outside the EC. We could see an arguable case that such assistance
would affect the operation of the common market where the intervention
was in the area of a Member State. But we were not persuaded that
intervention elsewhere would be likely to affect the operation
of the common market. So it appeared to us doubtful that Article
308 of the EC treaty would provide an appropriate legal base for
intervention by the Community outside its area. In February, we
asked the Minister to draw the Council's attention to our comments
and to tell us the response of the Commission and other Member
States.
2.10 We also noted that the Government had reservations
about some of the proposals and would be seeking clarification
of others. We asked the Minister, therefore, to keep us informed
of the progress of negotiations.
Document (b)
2.11 Document (b) is the draft of a Decision to re-enact
with amendments the Council Decision which set up the Community
Civil Protection Mechanism.[6]
It complements the draft Regulations on the EU Solidarity Fund
and on a rapid response and preparedness instrument for emergencies,
both of which are still under scrutiny.
2.12 The Annex to the proposal (ADD 1) summarises
the Community's response to major emergencies since 2002; refers
to the training that has been organised; identifies weaknesses
in the EC's present civil protection arrangements; discusses the
policy objectives of the draft Decision; comments on the comparative
merits of three options (do nothing; create a standing European
civil protection force; or improve the present arrangements);
and discusses the costs and benefits of the preferred option (improve
the present arrangements). For example, the Annex records that,
in 2005, the EC received six requests for assistance from countries
which are not part of the Community Protection Mechanism[7]
and provided assistance in four cases.
2.13 Document (b):
- retains some of the provisions
of the present Decision;
- amends or deletes other provisions; and
- adds some new material.
The principal changes are as follows.
2.14 Article 1 of the draft Decision establishes
the Community Protection Mechanism to facilitate co-operation
between the Community and Member States to provide assistance
in the event of major emergencies inside or outside the Community.
It enlarges the scope of the Mechanism to cover acts of terrorism
and "man-made disasters" as well as natural disasters
and technological, radiological or environmental accidents.
2.15 Article 2 specifies activities to be included
in the Civil Protection Mechanism. Some new ones are proposed,
such as:
- identifying military assets
in Member States which would be available to support civil protection
in a major emergency;
- the development of early warning systems; and
- the establishment of arrangements for transport,
logistics and other support at Community level.
2.16 The Commission's explanatory memorandum says
that the proposed provision on early warning systems is,
for example, to enable the Commission to assess and up-grade existing
warning systems and to improve links between detection systems
and alert mechanisms. The explanatory memorandum also says that
provision is needed to ensure that support services (such
as communications, stores and light vehicles) are available to
all Member States' teams of experts while they are at the site
of an emergency. Moreover, the Commission proposes that it should
have power to procure additional support if, for example,
the equipment available from Member States were insufficient or
inadequate; for instance, the Commission might hire fire-fighting
aircraft or high-capacity water pumps.
2.17 Article 3 sets out the things Member States
are required to do to contribute to the Community's preparedness
to respond to a request for intervention in an emergency. It includes
some new proposals, such as:
- under Article 3(3), Member
States would have a duty to "work towards developing civil
protection modules, consisting of resources of one or more Member
States, which can be deployed at very short notice to perform
support services or meet priority needs"; and
- under Article 3(6), Member States would have
a duty "to ensure the timely transport of civil protection
assistance."
2.18 Article 4 sets out the Commission's tasks, including
a new requirement for the Commission to make itself capable of
mobilising additional transport if necessary to ensure a rapid
response to major emergencies.
2.19 Article 9(1) proposes that the procedure for
making and dealing with Member States' requests for assistance
should apply to requests for assistance outside the Community.
2.20 Article 11 proposes that "participation
in the [Civil Protection Mechanism] shall be open to candidate
countries. Other third countries may cooperate in activities under
this mechanism where agreements so allow".
The Government's view
2.21 The Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office
(Edward Miliband) tells us that the Government believes that the
Civil Protection Mechanism can be an effective means for organising
co-operation between Member States in response to a major emergency.
He says that the draft Decision contains some useful changes to
the present arrangement, but that others require further examination.
2.22 For example, the Government:
- welcomes the proposed widening
of the scope of the Mechanism to include acts of terrorism and
man-made disasters;
- considers that some of the activities specified
in Article 2 (elements and actions covered by the Mechanism) require
clearer definition;
- will ask the Commission to clarify its proposals
on the development of early warning systems and civil protection
modules;
- remains to be convinced that membership of the
Civil Protection Mechanism should be available to any countries
in addition to those which are its current members; and
- believes that Article 308 of the EC Treaty could
provide an appropriate legal base for civil protection activity
within the EC, notes that we question whether it could be used
as the legal base for action outside the EC and "is currently
considering the options for legal bases".
Conclusion
2.23 Document (b) was deposited in Parliament
on 7 February. The Minister's Explanatory Memorandum on it was
not sent to us until 14 June. The Minister has apologised for
the delay but has offered no explanation for the tardiness of
the Cabinet Office. We consider that the delay — and the
failure even to write to us to say why there would be a delay
— is discourteous to the House and reflects badly on the
Cabinet Office.
2.24 We are glad the Government intends to seek
clarification of the proposals for the development of early warning
systems and modules and we ask the Minister to tell us what he
learns from the Commission.
2.25 We recognise that there could, in exceptional
circumstances, be justification for the Commission to procure
equipment or transport. But it appears essential that the Commission
should not procure things which Member States are willing to provide
and which would be suitable. We suggest, therefore, that the draft
Decision should require the Council's approval for strict criteria
for procurement of equipment or transport by the Commission.
2.26 In the Reports we made in October 2005 and
February, we questioned whether Article 308 of the EC Treaty would
provide a lawful legal base for the provision of assistance by
the Community outside its area. The Minister tells us that the
Government is still "reviewing the options". We do not
understand why it is taking so long to reach a conclusion and
we ask the Minister to tell us the Government's view without further
delay.
2.27 Document (b) supersedes the Commission's
Communication on the Civil Protection Mechanism and so we clear
document (a) from scrutiny. We shall keep document (b) under scrutiny
pending the Minister's response to our questions.
5 (26510), (26520) and (26521): see HC 34-v (2005-06),
para 9 (12 October 2005) and HC 34-xviii (2005-06), para 2 (8
February 2006). Back
6
Council Decision 2001/792/EC: OJ No. L 297, 15.11.2001, p.7. Back
7
The participants in the Mechanism are the Member States, Bulgaria,
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Romania. Back
| 
