WRITTEN QUESTION P-0694/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Nuclear Safety, the Convention on Nuclear Safety and Sellafield.
C 374 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 force in Luxembourg at the time the Commission received its information, is not grounds for an action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty but may be appealed by the interested party at national level. The Commission has also been informed that the Ministry of Transportís regulation of 19 June 1995 was repealed and replaced by a regulation of 8 May 1999. Upon examination it contains detailed criteria for accrediting structures required for training and also training organisation procedures. In this regard, the Commission does not have any information which demonstrates and proves that these criteria in effect maintain a monopoly for the Colmar-Berg centre. (2000/C 374 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0694/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission (3 March 2000) Subject: Nuclear Safety, the Convention on Nuclear Safety and Sellafield The Convention on Nuclear Safety came into force in October 1996. Could the Commission confirm which Member States have signed up, and if the United Kingdom is amongst the signatories? The Nuclear Safety Review (i. e. a peer review process) provided for in the Convention was due in April 1999. Could the Commission provide an update on the outcome of the review, and comment on any subsequent related developments? Considering the strict approach taken by the Commission over the safety of nuclear plants in applicant countries, would the Commission outline its position on the Sellafield nuclear plant in the UK, bearing in mind recent official criticism (1) of the plant, and outline what subsequent action the Commission feels should be taken at all levels of authority? (1) Contained in a report by the British Nuclear Installations Inspectorate published on Friday, February 18, 2000. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (4 April 2000) All Member States and the European atomic energy Community are parties to the 1994 Convention on nuclear safety (1). The first review meeting under the Convention took place on 12-23 April 1999 in Vienna. The European atomic energy Community was not yet contracting party at that date and therefore it did not take part in the meeting. The United Kingdom submitted its national report and took part in the meeting. The International atomic energy agency (IAEA) that provides the secretariat for the meetings of the contracting parties to the Convention made available on internet the summary report of the meeting (http://www. iaea. org/worldatom/glance/legal/revmtg0199. html). The Convention applies to the safety of land based civil nuclear power plants and therefore the Sellafield plant referred to is not within the scope of the Convention. It is, however, to be noted that one of the main requirements under the Convention is set out in its Article 8, regulatory body, as follows: 1. Each Contracting Party shall establish or designate a regulatory body entrusted with the implementation of the legislative and regulatory framework ( ), and provided with adequate authority, competence and financial and human resources to fulfil its assigned responsibilities. 2. Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure an effective separation between the functions of the regulatory body and those of any other body or organisation concerned with the promotion of utilisation of nuclear energyí. In general, and indeed in the United Kingdom, the competence of the regulatory body is not limited to nuclear installations as defined by the Convention. 28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/137 The ástrict approachí vis-à-vis the applicant countries was taken on the basis of a clear ápolitical acquisí given by the Member States. No equivalent acquis exists for nuclear facilities inside the Community. However, the Commission has already discussed the British Nuclear installation inspectorate report with the company concerned and has agreed to meet senior officials of the company to review steps taken to improve the safety of the installations in the coming weeks. The main Community requirements concerning protection against the effects of ionising radiation are laid down in Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of the workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (2). The Commission will continue to cooperate with the United Kingdom authorities with a view to the full application of the Community provisions. There is no evidence so far that the recent criticism on the Sellafield plant has any implications from a radiation protection point of view. (1) Commission Decision of 16 November 1999 (1999/819/Euratom) concerning the accession of the 1994 Conven- tion on nuclear safety by the European atomic energy Community (Euratom), OJ L 318, 11. 12. 1999. (2) OJ L 159, 29. 6. 1996. Directive 96/29/Euratom repeals previous directives with effect from 13 May 2000. (2000/C 374 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0695/00 by Marie-Noºlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission (3 March 2000) Subject: Discrimination against parents of mentally handicapped children by certain insurance companies Does the Commission consider as compatible with the principles of non-discrimination the practice by certain insurance companies of doubling the life-assurance premiums charged to parents of mentally handicapped children? If there is nothing in European Union legislation as it now stands to outlaw such injustice, will the Commission not propose ways and means of ensuring non-discriminatory access to this type of insurance contract? Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (11 April 2000) The Commission is aware of the current negotiations for the renewal of the group life assurance contract (temporary optional membership) subscribed to by the Union nationale des associations de parents et amis de personnes handicapØes mentales (Unapei) with a French assurance company. According to the latest information, the assurance company concerned has decided to pursue talks with Unapei, and in the meantime will maintain guarantees for the current year without raising premiums or reducing benefits. The Commission shares parentsí concern and strongly hopes the negotiations will succeed, thus maintain- ing present levels of coverage. Regarding Community law in this field, the Commission would recall that the third insurance directives, specifically the third life assurance directive (1), laid down the principle of freedom to set rates and abolished preliminary or systematic checks on rates and contracts which the assurance companies proposed to offer. Companies will generally set rates so as to achieve a balance between contributions and the amount of provision necessary to cover amounts due, in the light of actuarial principles. Since it is the duty of the home Member States to check the assurance companies concerned, the Commission cannot check premiums and give an opinion on their level. It is the task of the national institution to ensure that insurance premiums are appropriate and in accordance with reasonable actuarial assumptions to enable companies to meet their contractual commitments