WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3335/97 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. Sellafield Solvent Treatment Plant, Britain
Date: 1997-10-22
Institutions: European Parliament, MCKENNA
Subjects: EAEC Treaty, United Kingdom, chemical industry, exchange of information, radioactive waste, scientific committee (EU), solvent, technical committee (EU), waste disposal, waste management

C 134/140

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

(98/C 134/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3335/97

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(22 October 1997)

Subject: Sellafield Solvent Treatment Plant, Britain

The  European  Commission  issued  an  opinion  on  the  disposal  of  nuclear  waste  from  the  Sellafield  Solvent
Treatment Plant in Sellafield, Britain on 10 September last.

Based  on  information  supplied  by  British  Nuclear  Fuels  Ltd  (BNFL),  which  operates  the  plant,  the  British
Government and a (cid:145)group of experts(cid:146), the Commission reportedly decided that the disposal of wastes from this
plant would not be (cid:145)liable to result in radioactive contamination, significant to the point of view of health, of the
water, soil or airspace of another Member State(cid:146).

Can the Commission give details of the data supplied by BNFL, the British Government and a (cid:145)group of experts(cid:146)
to it on this matter? Who were the members of this (cid:145)group of experts(cid:146) and on what basis were they appointed?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1997)

General data received by the Commission under the terms of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty are transmitted by
the Member State (i.e. the government) hosting the plan concerned, not by the operator. While the Commission
has  no  authority  to  release  such  data,  the  originating  Member  State  may  do  so  following  a  request  from  an
individual or organization.

The group of experts mentioned in Commission opinions on general data is the group appointed by the scientific
and technical committee under the terms of Article 31 for the purposes of Article 37. Members of the group are
appointed  on  the  basis  of  their  personal  expertise  relevant  to  the  work  involved  in  examining  general  data
transmitted to the Commission.

(98/C 134/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3337/97

by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 1997)

Subject: Payment of Statutory Maternity Pay (United Kingdom): 16-week loophole

Is  the  Commission  aware  that,  under  United  Kingdom  regulations,  a  woman  who  is  less  than  sixteen  weeks
pregnant when she moves from one job to another is not entitled to Statutory Maternity Pay from either previous
or new employer; yet if she had been pregnant for 25 weeks when taking up a new post her old employer would
have been liable, and if she had fallen pregnant the day she took up a new post her new employers would be liable
to pay, and claim back from national social security?

Does the Commission consider that this situation is grossly unjust, particularly when women whose income is
the main source of revenue for a family, and who have not had a break in employment, find themselves in this
situation?

Does the Commission consider that if the employer is, by European law, not permitted to allow his judgment to
employ or not to employ to be clouded because a woman is pregnant (Dekker case), a women employee should
then be forced into the position of turning a job down purely because she will not be eligible for SMP at 90 per
cent for six weeks?

In the European Court(cid:146)s decision in the Dekker case (EOR35), as Advocate-General famously put it: (cid:145)Maternity
can never › excuse the truism › concern anyone but women: to take it into account in justifying a refusal of
engagement is therefore, by nature, discrimination directly based on sex(cid:146). Would the Commission agree that it is
equally discriminating for a woman to be forced to refuse engagement on account of maternity?