Select Committee on European Scrutiny Thirty-Second Report


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 originated28 April 2006
Deposited in Parliament11 May 2006
DepartmentTrade and Industry
Basis of considerationEM of 8 June 2006
Previous Committee ReportNone, but see footnote 52
To be discussed in CouncilNo date set
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionCleared, 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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 30 June 2006