Strasbourg, 15/12/2000 (Agence Europe) - By adopting a resolution (88 in favour, 77 against and 14 abstentions) tabled on behalf of the EPP/ED by the member of the Partido Popular, Gerardo Galeote Quecedo and British Conservative Edward McMillan-Scott, Parliament took a stance on the affair of the British nuclear powered submarine "HMS Tireless", which since 19 May has been anchored in the Port of Gibraltar for repairs following what "was called a small fissure in the cooling piping close to its nuclear reactor" (the leak detected off the coast of Sicily led to the spilling at sea of 200 litres of water from the submarine's cooling system). The European Parliament is calling on the European Commission to keep it informed of measures taken to ensure that obligations stemming from Community treaties in such a situation are respected. Parliament underpins that it is extremely important that the population be informed on developments in this affair: the Commission must play its role, liaising with the British and Spanish governments, in the search for the safest method of repairing "Tireless". "I'd like someone to tell me how the Commission can help repair a nuclear submarine", British Labour MEP Gary Titley exclaimed; Commissioner Chris Patten replied that he had precisely been setting about trying to clarify the "competences" (which are not "omni-competences") of the Commission in this affair (see below).
Parliament had, previously, rejected a resolution tabled by the United Left and the Greens claiming that the British authorities intended having the submarine repaired in Gibraltar although "their own rules prohibit work being carried out on nuclear reactors in ports of that type", and that called on the British Government to reclassify the Port of Gibraltar in Category Z, i.e., as port facility ill-adapted for the repair of nuclear propelled ships.
Several Spanish MEPs criticize the British Government and British MEPs try to reassure them
The resolution tabled by the EPP/ED Group was adopted at the end of a rather emotional debate, in which most Spanish MEPs - notably Ms. Diez Gonzalez, for the Socialist, Mr. Marset Campos, for the United Left and Mr. Bautista Ojeda, for the Greens - strongly criticised the British Government for its attitude (a "colonial attitude", exclaimed Marset Campos), whereas the member of the Partido Popular, Mr. Galeote Quecedo pleaded in favour of the role played by the Spanish Government. British MEPs who spoke in the debate, on the other hand, warned against any form of alarmism.
Carlos Bautista Ojedo, of the Partido Andalucista, accused the British authorities of having treated the waters around Gibraltar as their own "dumping" ground and called for the voices of the half a million people living in the area to be heard, and British Green, Jean Lambert (the only British MEP to have criticised London) considered that this affair raised problems concerning the development of Cfsp, declaring that military matters had not to have priority over responsibilities towards the environment and citizen health. "Let's be realistic, the submarine needs repairing 'in situ'", said the Conservative, Mr. Chichester, for whom one should not "cry wolf" following an incident that, he said, was "purely technical", whereas British Labour MEP, Mr. Titley considered that never had the British defence ministry shown as much transparency in an affair of this type (according to him, transferring the submarine to a British port would be the "most dangerous scenario"). As for the Liberal-Democrat, Mr. Newton-Dunn, while expressing understanding for the concerns of his "Spanish friends", he broadened the issue to the question of Gibraltar in general, exclaiming: "if ever you want to regain sovereignty over Gibraltar, you must first try to re-conquer the confidence of the Rock's inhabitants, should there one day be a referendum on Gibraltar's fate: to do so, begin by no longer creating difficulties at the borders". Stating that he had liaised with Gibraltar in this affair, British Conservative Mr. Tannock claimed that the contaminated water in the area in question was in fact "drinkable for human beings"; so far, the Spanish Government has shown "considerable maturity", he said, while noting that, according to the British Government, the Euratom Treaty does not apply to aspects concerning issues of defence. Spanish Socialist, Ms. Izquierdo Royo, on the other hand, blamed the Aznar Government for its "weakness" and, regarding "Tireless", exclaimed: "let it go away!", which led to the response by the member of the Partido Popular, Mr. Ojeda Sanz, who was scathing at the attitude of his Socialist compatriots whom he accused of taking advantage of the affair to attack the Aznar Government.
Chris Patten speaks of UK's response to Commission's request for information
and the limits to Euratom powers
European Commissioner Chris Patten (who answered on behalf of his colleague responsible for the environment, Margot Wallström) confirmed that this matter had been the subject of four complaints filed with the Commission, two of which arrived in the last few days. Following these complaints, the European Commission had written, from 10 October, to the British authorities, calling on them for further information in order to know whether: a) they had finalised an intervention plan for the Gibraltar port and dock area; b) if they had taken the provisions necessary to keep the public informed; c)- if they had any plans to transfer the submarine in Gibraltar to a British port. Two replies had been received from the British authorities on 14 November and 1 December. While recalling that the Commission is not authorised to make such documents on complaints public, but that it may simply state the general content, Mr Patten pointed out that: i) There is an intervention plan. It was finalised by the British Defence Ministry and by the government of Gibraltar, and it is apparently a public document to which the citizens may have access at the public library in Gibraltar; ii) There is no plan to transfer the "Tireless" and to have it transit via other EU country waters. Over and beyond the legal constraints, affirmed Mr Patten, "I would encourage the British authorities to make their reply public". He gave his assurance that he would personally give the European Parliament as much information as possible. Speaking not as a Commissioner but as a politician and as former environment minister, he repeated that he was in favour of the greatest transparency possible. Regarding the problem of Union powers in this matter, a problem raised mainly by British MEPs, Mr Patten recalled that Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty provides the legal base for three directives in force concerning health and security, public information on radiological emergency as well as on basic safety requirements and control of shipment of radioactive waste. The Commission, he specified however, cannot give its stance either on classification of docks likely to be equipped for taking in nuclear submarines, or on the technical safety of nuclear reactors.