asked the Taoiseach the basis on which he estimates that two nuclear power stations may be required and if a new cost-benefit analysis has been made, including an environmental impact statement, on the proposal to build a nuclear power station in Ireland.

2.

asked the Taoiseach to outline the full text of his discussions and any decisions taken on nuclear energy, as it affects Ireland, at his recent meeting with the EEC heads of government.

3.

asked the Taoiseach to outline in greater detail his reference to a second nuclear power station.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.

The special tribunal to be established by the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy will consider all aspects of the proposal for a nuclear power station, including economic, environmental, safety, security of supply and other aspects.

On 26 June I made a statement to the House on the outcome of the European Council in Strasbourg and laid the Conclusions of the Presidency before both Houses. The statement gave an outline of the discussions, in so far as they can be made public, and the Conclusions indicate the decisions taken at the Council.

After the Council I said that a second nuclear power station might be required depending on the way our economy grows, our need for energy, the availability and price of oil, and other factors. That remains the position.

Has any environmental impact statement been prepared in draft form or otherwise by the Taoiseach's Department or by any Government Department in relation to a nuclear power station in this country?

The environmental aspect and other matters affecting the situation are under consideration by a high-level inter-departmental group. Their conclusions will be published and will be made available to the public generally and, if and when the tribunal sits, to that tribunal as well.

Does the Taoiseach not consider that his statement given, after the Summit meeting, in relation to a possible second nuclear power station was perceived by many people here to pre-empt the entire exercise of a public inquiry?

That is a separate question.

With respect, there are three questions to the Taoiseach. He has taken the three of them together. Does the Taoiseach not consider that his statement after the Summit, in the minds of many people, pre-empts the whole exercise of a public inquiry? If the Taoiseach is already favourably disposed to a second nuclear station surely an inquiry into the first one is academic.

What I favour is not a matter of issue now. I was answering a question put to me by journalists as usually happens after meetings of this nature. I was asked what capacity would one nuclear station have and I said that I was advised that it would supply only about 15 per cent of our total requirements. The question was then asked if that would be sufficient having regard to our existing dependency on oil and I replied that if our economic growth rate continued and if our dependency on oil, which is a declining resource, was very high we might have to think of a second nuclear power station.

I am sorry to press this, but does the Taoiseach not feel, as Leader of the Government, that his comments and the way in which they were reported, pre-empt the whole exercise of a public inquiry? May we now take it that the Government are committed in principle to the idea of a nuclear power station irrespective of the outcome of the inquiry?

The inquiry will be independent and obviously its findings will have to be very carefully noted.

Can the Taoiseach confirm, in the light of his replies to these questions and his comments in the discussion on the statement at the European Council, presuming there was no decision made about energy affecting Ireland, that in fact there was no pressure from the European Council on this subject affecting this country, contrary to the impression given?

There was no pressure. I think the word pressure was perhaps used by some person who wrote a headline on the interview I had with journalists. I said that on the margin a member of one country had said that we ought to proceed more quickly because I had told him that if we decided to go ahead we did not expect to have nuclear power before the mid-1980's. So there was no question of pressure. The Deputy will of course be familiar with the findings in which it said at paragraph 4 that it was the understanding of the Council that without the development of nuclear energy in the coming decades no economic growth would be possible and that nuclear programmes must therefore be given strong, fresh impetus.

Would this not confirm what I suggested in my reply to the statement that there is a view in the European Commission that there is no particular urgency about a nuclear station for Ireland and that it is not something to which we should definitely commit ourselves at this stage?

I do not know what the view of the Commission is but there is an overall view, certainly in the member countries, that unless some other alternative source of energy emerges that we would have to depend, to a large extent, on nuclear energy. We have no alternative source other than might be available to the rest of the Community so that is very speculative as far as other sources are concerned.

Is the Taoiseach not aware that a contrary view has been expressed by the Commissioners in respect of this country because of its very small size in terms of total energy requirements? If he is not so aware will he cause an inquiry to be made as to what is the view of the Commission on the subject?

Irrespective of what the views of the Commission are, as far as my country and its future are concerned, I would not want to be overdependent on imported resources. We know exactly where that has got us at present.