asked the Minister for Energy if he has lodged an objection with the British authorities in connection with the proposal to build a nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point, Somerset; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I have, since I came into office, made numerous representations to the UK authorities regarding Irish concerns about the UK nuclear industry. In April 1987, I wrote to the then UK Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Peter Walker, protesting on behalf of the Irish Government at plans to construct new nuclear plants. In September 1987, following the CEGB's announcement of their proposal to build a pressurised water reactor at Hinkley Point, I had a meeting with Mr. Cecil Parkinson, Mr. Walker's successor, and I expressed Ireland's complete opposition to any expansion of the UK nuclear industry.

On 22 December last I wrote to Mr. Parkinson reiterating the major fears and concerns of the Government and the Irish people about the UK nuclear industry, and urging that the utmost consideration be given to the objections to the proposed new plant at Hinkley Point.

Will the Minister give us an indication of the response he received from the then Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Walker, and his successor, Mr. Parkinson? Will he outline to the House if British Secretaries of State are taking on board our concerns and if they have any appreciation for the concerns and fears which people in this country have for the British nuclear industry. I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate whether he is making progress or if he is beating his heal off a stone wall?

Beating his head off a stone wall.

The Deputy will be aware of what it is like dealing with the British authorities on this issue, as in many others. I have received a response from the Secretary of State for Energy in response to my letter of 22 December 1987. He, of course, reiterates that safety is of paramount importance in the operation of all their nuclear installations in the UK and this remains and will continue to remain their position. In addition, they are having a public inquiry, and that was announced on 17 December, into the CEGB's application to construct a pressurised water reactor in Somerset. He informs me that he will then reach his decision on the application in due course in the light of the inquiry inspector's report and all other relevant matters. I would say that I am not satisfied with the response I have been getting from the British on the legitimate fears we have as a nation to the activities of the CEGB, to the reprocessing units they have in Sellafield and to their proposals for experiments at Trawsfynydd and Wilfa. We are not happy with that and we have used every diplomatic channel available to us in the UK and we are considering the situation of going a step further and taking legal action because we feel that you can only depend on the diplomatic process for so long and after that it is a question of the legal road.

In relation to the Hinkley Point station, given that the Minister has made representations on numerous occasions and that he has no reason to believe they are not going to proceed with the construction of that plant, if they do continue, is the Minister suggesting that he would initiate legal action against the British authorities to prevent them constructing the plant?

Under the Euratom Treaty they are bound by certain rules and regulations with regard to the plants that they bring onstream and the safety considerations of neighbouring countries. For example, we have joined with Luxembourg and the State of Saarland against the French in a court case they are taking against the French in the construction of a plant which the French have put right up on their border. We see no reason why at this stage we should not proceed along the legal road because we are not satisfied that sufficient care and attention are being paid to our representations and to the legitimate concerns and fears of the Irish people in relation to the activities of the British nuclear industry. If we had any doubts about their transparency in this matter they were well and truly removed when, under the 30 year rule, the Cabinet papers of the Windscale incident were published and it was shown that the British Government were involved in a cover-up of that particular accident. We are very concerned. We are chasing the British through the EC Commission because we believe there is need for an independent inspectorate at Community level; that is one item which I will be discussing with the European Commission. The Deputies can be assured that the Government share their concern. This is one issue that unites the whole nation. They can be assured that the Government are pursuing the matter as vigorously as possible and I am open to any suggestion from any side of the House as to any other actions and steps I might take.

Will the Minister indicate the rough terms of a legal case under the Euratom Treaty? Would the case hinge on proven negligence or proximity, or what would be the key element in a case that could succeed?

That is being looked at and examined at present. It is under review by the Attorney General's office as to the exact legal line, whether under Euratom, whether we go into the British courts, and exactly what course of action is pursued. I am not a lawyer. All our information has been made available to the office of the Attorney General and I am awaiting his advice as to the course of action to be followed.

It is a big change of heart for the Minister to be taking legal action.

If the Deputy wants to talk about a change of heart it took three votes in Dáil Éireann in 1986 before we could get agreement from the Deputy's party, the Government of the day, even to make a call on the British Government for the closure of Sellafield. The Deputy should be aware that this item unites all the Irish people. There has been in this House a very considered approach which was reflected in the debate here today before the Deputy's intervention. I think his intervention is less than helpful in the particular situation.

With all your huffing and puffing you are no more successful than your predecessor.

If the Deputy wishes to make an intervention he should rise in his place and have the approval of the Chair to do so.

I apologise.

16.