WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3335/97 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. Sellafield Solvent Treatment Plant, Britain
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 ágroup of expertsí, the Commission reportedly decided that the disposal of wastes from this plant would not be áliable to result in radioactive contamination, significant to the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another Member Stateí. Can the Commission give details of the data supplied by BNFL, the British Government and a ágroup of expertsí to it on this matter? Who were the members of this ágroup of expertsí 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 Courtís decision in the Dekker case (EOR35), as Advocate-General famously put it: 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 sexí. Would the Commission agree that it is equally discriminating for a woman to be forced to refuse engagement on account of maternity?