I understand the Taoiseach may be heading off to Thessalonika this week to deal with the new EU constitution. I am interested in the Government's position regarding the EURATOM Treaty. Is the Taoiseach aware that a large number of MEPs and parliamentarians have come together in a united call that the EURATOM Treaty should not be a part of the new constitution, even as an annexe? Given the interest shown by the Government in the Sellafield case, it is surprising that it has not signed up to this common approach. Is the Government considering signing up or is it pursuing another agenda?

Is the Taoiseach aware that Article 1 of the EURATOM Treaty calls for "the speedy establishment and growth of nuclear industries"? This is not what we expect from the Government, given its opposition to Sellafield. Is the Taoiseach conscious of the fact that most of the EU member states have no nuclear power or are phasing it out and that since the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents there has been a radical change in the attitude to EURATOM and nuclear power in the EU? I ask the Taoiseach to provide leadership in supporting the call by the Governments of Austria and Luxembourg, among others, to include a sunset clause that would see the EURATOM Treaty phased out after 2007.

Will the Taoiseach support the integration of nuclear safety, which we all support, in the environmental and health aspects of the new EU constitution? That will be the place to deal with the clean-up operations following this sorry episode of EU history, when nuclear power has dominated research funding to the exclusion of other energy forms such as renewable energy.

I commend the work which was completed on Friday in the convention. It certainly provides the basis for a successful summit in Thessalonika and for the commencement of the Intergovernmental Conference in mid-October. I acknowledge the work everyone has put into this.

The EURATOM Treaty was discussed last February. At that stage, Deputy John Bruton put forward a paper from the praesidium to which the Irish Government responded. Within the group of countries – the friends of the communitaire group – we have supported initiatives of Germany and other countries and the winding down and closure of nuclear stations has been agreed.

It has not yet been decided how the EURATOM Treaty is to be finalised. I spoke to the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, just after Question Time today. Precisely how it is to be dealt with, whether it is to be an annexe to the treaty or take up a separate section, has not yet been resolved. When we put forward a position paper last February, agreement had not been achieved. Deputy Bruton endeavoured to get agreement at the praesidium as to how it would be dealt with but that was not finalised.

If the group that we have been supporting on all the other issues – and our Austrian friends who have been taking a lead are in that – we will certainly be supportive of it.

I am sure we could have a long discussion about the EU constitution in general. However, I have a specific question for the Taoiseach. Why did the Government not sign the agreed call from MEPs and parliamentarians, and the Governments of Austria and Luxembourg, to bring an end to the EURATOM Treaty and to insert a sunset clause which would come into effect after 2007? I understand that Deputy Carey signed it but that the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, did not. Can we have a clear response as to where the Government stands on this issue?

Giscard d'Estaing can be forgiven for supporting the EURATOM Treaty, given the French association with nuclear power and that country's disproportionate spending of €3 billion on nuclear power. Where is the Irish interest? Is this about not upsetting the British over Sellafield or nuclear power in general? Will the Government give clear support for the ending of the EURATOM Treaty? It is a dinosaur among EU institutions and has outlived its usefulness and relevance. I ask the Taoiseach to be proactive in this regard.

Deputy Sargent is well aware of what happened a few months ago. At the meeting of environment Ministers in Luxembourg last week on environmental liabilities, we supported the principle of the directive and voted against the nuclear section included therein. We have taken that view throughout the convention on any areas where there was reference to the involvement of the nuclear industry. This is consistent with what we are doing in OSPAR, UNCLOS and in the case in The Hague. The issue which arose in February, and which was not resolved, is how we can deal with this issue in the finalisation treaty.

Deputy Sargent can take it that I continue to support Wolfgang Schuessel. I spoke to him about this issue and I continue to support the Austrians on it.

Why will the Taoiseach not come to sign this—

Sorry, Taoiseach, that concludes—

In any of these issues the communitaire group with whom we have worked, the friends of the Community – we have not been signing directives. We have been working together as a group.

They did.

We have not, not as a Government.