Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

On the first issue, I am not aware of the legal costs around it, but it was the right thing to do. The reason we took the case is obvious. Both the United Kingdom and Ireland are parties to the convention and, as correctly urged, we were proactive in this matter. If we are party to a convention we should abide by the convention and our view was that the British were not doing that. It is not unreasonable to seek to avail of the speedy dispute resolution mechanism that it provided. The other main reason is that it was unclear where competency lay on this issue. The European Union sat nicely on the fence on some of these issues and, thankfully, it is now nicely off it. The implications of the EU treaties for international conventions are only now being clarified by this judgment, and the legal team is very happy that it forced that position. Both the international tribunal hearing and Sweden, which strongly supported our case at the European Court of Justice, shared our view, as did their lawyers.

We welcome the clarity now provided by this judgment for the first time. The Commission has now placed itself at centre stage, which it avoided doing for many decades. We have an obligation to co-operate with the EU institutions and we will certainly do so. The Government will now seek to determine the Commission's response to the judgment and explore how we will handle this issue in the future with the Commission in the driving seat. We remain fully committed to utilising all the legal and diplomatic avenues open to us to bring about the safe and orderly closure of Sellafield. This judgment does not alter that position. The court's decision is being studied by the legal team which has been reviewing the potential future litigation strategy open to the Government. It is important to remember that the EU Commission is seeking to establish its competence through this case. It has now placed itself at centre stage and the Government will seek to ensure that the Commission exercises its competence in respect of the continued operation of the Sellafield plant by the UK Government, a situation which has not pertained to date. It always avoided that position.

On the issue of the Balkans, a number of countries were committed including Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania. There are probably about ten other countries, in one form or another, interested in European Union membership. In the debate we have had over the past year on the financial perspectives, the issue of the constitution arose. It must be remembered that the reason for the constitution was to ensure Europe could administer itself properly in a far wider Union than under the old system, which was the Union of 12. That issue must be addressed. In its financial and administrative systems, the Community will not be able to take on any more members. I have, for a good few years, emphasised to colleagues at every hand's turn — as I am sure the Deputy has heard within his group — that we should look at initiatives such as the new neighbourhood policy and dealing with new member state applications in that regard. This would be in preference to charging ahead and running into difficulties. It has slowed down a bit, and some of these countries which believe this to be the solution to everything have been hauled back a bit. It is not just not possible to do it. It will only end up with grief for everyone if people continue to do that.

Deputy Kenny asked me a third question.

See this speech in context