Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 242: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when Ireland first requested the British Government to close the Sellafield plant; the legal actions which have been taken to assist in seeking its closure; the cost of same to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22881/06]

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ireland has had a long-standing concern about nuclear activities at Sellafield since they began in the late 1940's. These concerns were significantly increased following the Windscale fire in 1957 and an incident at Sellafield in 1983 which caused widespread radioactive contamination of the adjacent beaches. In December 1986 Dáil Éireann unanimously agreed a motion calling on the British Government to arrange for the immediate closure of Sellafield, and successive Governments have repeatedly conveyed this view to the UK Government. The objective was restated in the Agreed Programme for Government of 2002.

The Government instituted two international legal actions against the UK Government in relation to Sellafield. One case was taken under the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic and the other was taken under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The costs in respect of legal, economic and scientific advices and representation incurred to date in respect of these legal actions is approximately €2.637m.

Oral hearings in relation to the OSPAR proceedings took place in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague in October 2002. The objective of the OSPAR action was to bring about the disclosure of certain information which had been excluded from two economic reports commissioned by the UK on the MOX Plant.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration Tribunal issued its award on 2 July 2003. Although Ireland failed to gain access to the confidential information withheld from the UK public consultation papers, the Tribunal did establish an important international legal precedent. It determined that Ireland has a right under the OSPAR Convention to access to information on the marine environment, that the U.K. has an obligation to make such information available and that Ireland has a right of redress under the Convention to vindicate its rights to such information.

The hearing of the substantive case under UNCLOS took place in The Hague, in the Permanent Court of Arbitration from the 10 to 21 June 2003. The issues in this case include the threat to the marine environment from the continued operation and expansion of Sellafield including security issues, the threat to the Irish Sea from shipments of nuclear materials and the inadequacy of the 1993 Environmental Impact Statement for the MOX Plant. However, at the beginning of the hearing the Tribunal were concerned with arguments raised by the United Kingdom that the issues in dispute before the Tribunal were matters of European Community competence and should fall for decision by the European Court of Justice.

The Tribunal took the view it would be inappropriate to go on to consider the merits of Ireland's case while uncertainty remained as to the division of competences in respect of UNCLOS between the European Community and its Member States. In the circumstances, the Tribunal postponed hearings on the substantive case to facilitate a resolution of the issues relating to jurisdiction between the European Community and UNCLOS. However, the Tribunal did hear an application by Ireland for Provisional Measures pending the hearing of the substantive case.

The Tribunal issued an Order on 24 June after hearing an application by Ireland for Provisional Measures. This Order called upon both Parties to develop suitable secure arrangements at inter-Governmental level to improve co-operation and consultation. In relation to the issue of competency between UNCLOS and the European Community, the European Commission initiated proceedings against Ireland in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 31 October 2003. The Court issued its Judgment on 30 May last, which inter alia declared that Ireland, by instituting proceedings against the UK under UNCLOS, failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law. The judgment also establishes that certain provisions of UNCLOS form part of the Community legal order and that the ECJ has jurisdiction to determine disputes on their interpretation and application.

The Judgment represents a significant development and clarification of Community law. It means that the resolution of disputes between Member States in relation to a wide range of international agreements, particularly in the environmental field, comes within the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The Judgment presents Member States, such as Ireland, with new mechanisms for holding other Member States to account in relation to their transboundary obligations towards the environment. These and other issues consequent on the Judgement are being examined in detail by Ireland's international legal team, led by the Attorney General. Ireland's strategy in pursuit of the objectives of this case will be considered and determined by Government, based on this examination and analysis.