HC Deb 05 February 1979 vol 962 cc18-9
16. Mr. Stoddart

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is now in a position to make a further statement as to the implications of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Communities dated 14 November 1978 in respect of article 103 of the European Atomic Energy Community Treaty.

7. Mr. Spearing

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what cases are pending at the Court of the European Economic Community concerning the Euratom Treaty; and what significance they have for the control of atomic material and energy in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Benn

To the best of my knowledge, there are no cases pending at the European Court concerning the Euratom Treaty. A ruling concerning Community participation in the draft IAEA Convention on physical protection was handed down on 14 November 1978. We are still considering its implications, and I am not at present in a position to make a formal statement about it.

Mr. Stoddart

I hope that my right hon. Friend will shortly be in a position to make such a statement, because there is considerable concern, certainly on the Labour Benches, that this ruling, handed down on 14 November, has serious implications for the ownership and control of our nuclear energy and, indeed, of our nuclear supplies. When can we expect the Government to have completed their consideration of this far-reaching ruling?

Mr. Benn

The Law Officers will have to consider the far-reaching nature of that ruling. My anxiety is that the Euratom Treaty could be interpreted in such a way as to say that all special fissile materials were the property of the Euratom Agency. If that were held to be the case—and we shall have to wait for the Law Officers to say what the meaning of it is—that would have very serious consequences indeed. I have seen Dr. Brunner and explained that some of his interpretations of chapter 6 of the Euratom Treaty are wholly unrealistic.

Mr. Hooley

Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that not only is the question of the ownership of the fissile material called into question by this ruling, but that responsibility for security and policing of nuclear installations would apparently be transferred to Brussels and away from the control of this country? This ruling is quite fantastic in its implications if it is construed literally.

Mr. Benn

The immediate meaning of the ruling is that member States are not permitted to participate, unless the Commission or the Community itself does, in the physical protection of nuclear materials. But I do not have to tell the House that any interference with the responsibility of member States for the safety or ownership of certain nuclear materials would be very serious indeed. The Government are watching this with very keen interest.