MULTILATERAL NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME
(16062/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Lord Truscott,
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Energy, Department
of Trade and Industry
Sub-Committee B considered this document, and
your Explanatory Memorandum, at its meeting on 15 January 2007.
We recognise the very great importance, in terms
of security as well as the environment of the safe and effective
management spent nuclear materials in the Russian Federation.
Thus the MNEPR and Protocol are to be welcomed, and appear to
have operated well since 2003.
Although your EM reports that there are "no
legal or procedural issues", there do appear to us to be
some potential difficulties. Firstly, we note that the legal base
used is Article 181a(3) in conjunction with 300(2). What are the
Government's views as to the appropriateness of Article 181a here,
and particularly as to the application of Article 181a to non-developing
countries? Secondly, we were unclear as to what role, if any,
EURATOM has in the area covered by the agreement. Could you clarify
this? Lastly, we would be grateful if you could tell us whether
there will be, or has been, a declaration of competence in relation
to this agreement, setting out the division of competence between
the Community and Member States.
In light of these concerns, we will maintain
scrutiny on the document at this stage.
16 January 2007
Letter from Lord Truscott to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 16 January, about
the MNEPR Agreement and Protocol.
You raised three queries about the MNEPR and
the Associated Protocol. Firstly you asked for the Government's
view about the appropriateness of use of Article 181a(3) as the
legal base for MNEPR. We note that article 181a(3) states that
the Community and Member States shall carry out economic, financial
and technical cooperation measures with third countries. It does
not specifically limit cooperation to developing countries. As
such, and especially in view of the critical importance of safe
and effective management of the large and dangerous stockpiles
of spent nuclear materials in the Russian Federation, we take
the view that Article 181a is appropriate for use in these circumstances.
You also asked about the role of EURATOM. The
MNEPR Framework Agreement has been signed twice by the Communities.
One signature was on behalf of the European Community and another
on behalf of Euratom. This means both have to ratify the Agreement.
The ratification by Euratom has already taken place, and the Commission
has published its decision in the Official Journal with no role
to be played by the Parliament in this case. The present Council
Decision which has been sent to the European Parliament only concerns
conclusion on behalf of the European Comunity.
Thirdly, you asked about possible declaration
of competence in relation to the agreement. As far as we are aware
there are no plans to make a declaration of competence to set
out the division of competence between the Community and Member
States. The MNEPR agreement simply acts as a legal framework whereby
signatories can agree to support project work to address the wide
range of issues surrounding security and environmental safety
of spent nuclear materials in the NW Russia region. Any programmes
that are considered for support through the Community are submitted
to Management Committees and Expert Groups that represent the
Member States. No programme is launched without the full approval
of the Member States. There is also a wide range of further bodies,
such as the Global Partnership Working Group and the IAEA Contact
Expert Group, which work to ensure effective and efficient collaboration
between the parties working under the MNEPR agreement in Russia.
29 January 2007
Letter from the Chairman to Lord Truscott
Thank you for your letter of 29 January 2007,
replying to my letter of 16 January. Sub-Committee B considered
your letter at its meeting on 19 February.
We were most grateful to you for your answers
to our three questions, and note that, as far as you know, there
will be no declaration of competence. We would of course welcome
an update from you should this situation change.
We are content to lift scrutiny on the draft
Decision.
26 February 2007
| 
