15 Inter-institutional co-operation on
international conventions relating to atomic energy
| (27476)
9018/06
COM(06) 179
+ ADD 1
| Commission Communication on a draft inter-institutional agreement on inter-institutional co-operation in the framework of International Conventions to which the European Atomic Energy Community and its Member States are parties
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 28 April 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 11 May 2006
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 8 June 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnote 52
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
15.1 According to the Commission, the principal task of the European
Atomic Energy Community is to create the conditions necessary
for the speedy establishment and growth of nuclear industries,
and, in order to accomplish this, the Community has been given
sovereign rights ceded to it by Member States through the signing
of the Euratom Treaty in the main areas of research, health and
safety, supply of raw materials and nuclear safeguards. It says
that, under the Treaty, the Community can establish relations
with third countries and international organizations to foster
progress in the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and may accordingly
enter into obligations by concluding agreements or contracts with
a third State, an international organisation, or a national of
a third State.
15.2 The Commission notes that the Community is a
contracting party to five international conventions relating to
matters covered by the Euratom Treaty,[50]
which provide that regional integration organisations are parties
only to the extent of their competence. It adds that, since Member
States have transferred some of their competences in this area,
the Community — alone, when it has exclusive competence,
or, together with Member States when competences are shared —
is in a position to assume and carry out obligations with regard
to third countries at international conferences. It has accordingly
sought in this document to set out the general principles on which
coordination between it and the Member States in this area should
be based.
The current document
15.3 The Commission has proposed that, where there
is shared competence, the Community and Member States should respect
the following principles:
- Co-operation:
The Member States and the Community Institutions should co-operate
closely in order to ensure the best possible result.
- Coordination: The
Member States and the Community should coordinate their positions,
always upholding a common position.
- Solidarity: This should
pursued be in accordance with Article 192 of the Euratom Treaty.[51]
- Unity: Member States
should facilitate the Community's task of ensuring the unity of
its representation with regard to third parties.
- Added value: Member
States should regard the fact that they belong to the Community
as an added value which does not hinder, but rather reinforces,
their positions at international conferences.
15.4 The Commission also addresses the particular
question of the regular review meetings held every three years
to examine reports by contracting parties on the measures taken
to implement the obligations contained in the Convention on Nuclear
Safety and the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management
and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. It says that,
where the Commission has exclusive competence, it represents the
Community at these meetings and draws up a report on measures
taken on behalf of Euratom to implement the obligations of the
Conventions, and that, where the Commission has shared competence,
it takes part in such meetings alongside Member States to the
extent of its competences.
15.5 It now proposes that it should initiate contacts
with the Council before finalizing such a report to allow for
discussion with Member States, on the basis that the appropriate
forum for such discussions is the Council rather than an international
meeting. It also points out reports submitted by the contracting
parties are currently discussed and evaluated in "country
groups" according to the peer review principle, and that
only representatives of delegations in a given country group can
currently participate. It now suggests that to ensure the unity
of the Community's representation, those Member States which so
wish will be eligible to participate in a Euratom delegation presenting
a report on behalf of the Community.
15.6 Finally, the Commission points out that all
five conventions provide a mechanism for their revision or amendment,
and it proposes that, where this deals with a subject where there
is shared competence, the participation of the Community and Member
States should be coordinated.
The Government's view
15.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 8 June 2006,
the Minister of State for Energy at the Department of Trade and
Industry (Malcolm Wicks) says that it is unclear what problem
the draft proposal is trying to solve, adding that coordination
already takes place through regular meetings chaired by the Presidency,
and that no Member State has shown positive support for the proposal.
15.8 More specifically, he says that:
- the Commission's reference
to principles is a strong term to use, suggesting an over-riding
legal requirement on Member States: however, Article 192 of the
Euratom Treaty already enshrines the issue of solidarity in law
under the so-called duty of loyal co-operation, and, in the UK's
view, the draft proposal has not made out a case why this is insufficient;
- the Commission has previously criticised Member
States which express different views at international meetings,
and could use the approach suggested to try and stifle dissent:
this could explain why the proposal suggests that Community reports
should only be discussed within the Council, and not in other
fora;
- the proposal could also be linked to the Commission's
plans for a greater role in the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA),[52] and could
lead to it seeking a greater role in other matters;
- there should be no obligation to secure a common
position, given in particular that the European Court of Justice
has held that, in areas of Member State competence, they must
use their best endeavours to reach such a position, but are free
to go their own ways if this cannot be achieved; and
- the suggestion that the Commission and Council
should present jointly matters which fall within both Community
and Member State competence is odd, since this role is usually
performed by the Presidency.
15.9 All in all, the Minister concludes that the
UK sees no benefit from this proposal, its implications being
that Euratom would gain greater influence, whilst individual Member
States would have less freedom to speak independently at international
events at which Euratom participates.
Conclusion
15.10 As the Minister points out, there is something
of an analogy between this document and the one we considered
on 26 April 2006 dealing with the status of Euratom at the International
Atomic Energy Agency, and there is also in each case a similar
lack of enthusiasm from the Government for what has been proposed.
On that occasion, we commented that, whilst we thought it right
to draw the document to the attention of the House, we saw no
need to withhold clearance, but we did ask the Government to keep
us informed of the reactions of other Member States to the ideas
put forward by the Commission. We propose to adopt a similar approach
in this instance.
50 The Convention on Nuclear Safety; the Joint Convention
on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive
Waste Management; the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear
Accident; the Convention on Assistance in the case of a Nuclear
Accident or Radiological Emergency; and the Convention on the
Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. Back
51
This requires Member States to take appropriate measures to ensure
fulfilment of obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting
from action taken by the Institutions of the Community; to facilitate
the achievement of the Community's tasks; and to abstain from
any measure which could jeopardize the attainment of the Treaty's
objectives. Back
52
(27379) 7609/06; see HC 34-xxvi (2005-06), para 16 (26 April 2006). Back
|
